Structural and mechanical properties of the Achilles tendon in senior badminton players: Operated vs. non-injured tendons
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), assig...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha |
| Repositorio: | RUIdeRA. Repositorio Institucional de la UCLM |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ruidera.uclm.es:10578/31436 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10578/31436 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Badminton Elastography Myotonometer Achilles tendon Ultrasound |
| Sumario: | 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. |
|---|