These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Structural and mechanical properties of the Achilles tendon in senior badminton players: Operated vs. non-injured tendons.
    Author: Bravo-Sánchez A, Abián P, Jimenez F, Abián-Vicén J.
    Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol); 2021 May; 85():105366. PubMed ID: 33915493.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the differences in structural and mechanical properties between operated and non-injured Achilles tendons in senior badminton players who had had Achilles tendon surgery and had returned to play. METHODS: Eighteen players (age = 48.9(10.0)years), assigned to the unilateral Achilles tendon rupture group and 177 non-injured players (age = 55.4(9.4)years), assigned to the control group. A Logiq®S8 ultrasound was used to study tendon structure and elastography index values and a Myoton®PRO hand-held myotonometer was used to record the stiffness of the Achilles tendon. FINDINGS: In Achilles tendon rupture group, operated tendons showed higher values than non-injured ones in thickness (Operated = 9.03(2.67)mm vs. non-injured = 5.88(0.88)mm; P < 0.001), width (Operated = 18.44(3.20)mm vs. non-injured = 16.80(1.97)mm; P = 0.039), cross sectional area (Operated = 140.33(60.29)mm2 vs. non-injured = 74.40(17.09)mm2; P < 0.001) and elastography index (Operated = 2.05(1.35)A.U. vs. non-injured = 1.47(0.62)A.U.; P = 0.025). The bilateral differences shown by the Achilles tendon rupture group were greater than the bilateral differences shown by the control group for thickness (P < 0.001), width (P = 0.001), cross sectional area (P < 0.001), tone (P = 0.006) and dynamic stiffness (Achilles tendon rupture group = 10.85(23.90)N∙m-1. vs. control group = 0.18(18.83)N∙m-1; P = 0.031). INTERPRETATION: Surgery on the Achilles tendon and adaptation to the mobilisation and strength training during rehabilitation could provoke structural and mechanical differences compared to the non-injured tendon. Furthermore, the differences between both Achilles tendons in the Achilles tendon rupture group was higher than the asymmetry observed between dominant and non-dominant Achilles tendons in the control group. In addition, the higher logarithmic decrement values showed by non-injured tendons in the Achilles tendon rupture group could be a tendinous injury risk factor.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]