In vivo animal models of Achilles tendon rupture management: a narrative review.

IF 7.5 2区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Nicola Maffulli, Filippo Spiezia, Francesco Oliva
{"title":"In vivo animal models of Achilles tendon rupture management: a narrative review.","authors":"Nicola Maffulli, Filippo Spiezia, Francesco Oliva","doi":"10.1093/bmb/ldag032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Acute Achilles tendon rupture is common, and the balance between surgical and non-surgical management remains contested. Much of the mechanistic evidence informing this debate derives from in vivo animal models, which have not previously been appraised together as a class.</p><p><strong>Sources of data: </strong>PubMed/MEDLINE was searched using terms for the Achilles/calcaneal tendon combined with terms for rupture, transection, tenotomy, defect, repair and relevant animal species. Reference lists of included studies and pertinent reviews were hand-searched, supplemented by a grey-literature/web sweep. The search was last updated in June 2026. Given the marked heterogeneity of species, injury model, intervention and outcome measures, findings are synthesized narratively rather than pooled quantitatively or scored against a structured risk-of-bias instrument.</p><p><strong>Areas of agreement: </strong>Twenty-four in vivo studies (predominantly rat, with mouse, rabbit and one sheep model) were identified. Immobilization angle and duration, rather than repair per se, appear to be dominant determinants of early healing. Biological and pharmacological augmentation strategies generally improve biomechanical properties, with less consistent histological change.</p><p><strong>Areas of controversy: </strong>Controversies in this literature are of two kinds, substantive and methodological. Direct comparisons of repair versus non-repair are scarce, and reach divergent conclusions once immobilization is accounted for. Reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, blinding and sample-size justification is inconsistent and often absent.</p><p><strong>Growing points: </strong>Cell- and vesicle-based therapies, engineered scaffolds and lineage-tracing/mechanistic models are actively reshaping this literature.</p><p><strong>Areas timely for developing research: </strong>Consensus reference models with standardized transection, repair and immobilization protocols, explicit reporting of ankle angle, duration and method of immobilization, weight-bearing status and timing of mobilization, ARRIVE-compliant reporting, and embedding of biological augmentation within defined management models are needed to strengthen translational value.</p>","PeriodicalId":9280,"journal":{"name":"British medical bulletin","volume":"160 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British medical bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldag032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Acute Achilles tendon rupture is common, and the balance between surgical and non-surgical management remains contested. Much of the mechanistic evidence informing this debate derives from in vivo animal models, which have not previously been appraised together as a class.

Sources of data: PubMed/MEDLINE was searched using terms for the Achilles/calcaneal tendon combined with terms for rupture, transection, tenotomy, defect, repair and relevant animal species. Reference lists of included studies and pertinent reviews were hand-searched, supplemented by a grey-literature/web sweep. The search was last updated in June 2026. Given the marked heterogeneity of species, injury model, intervention and outcome measures, findings are synthesized narratively rather than pooled quantitatively or scored against a structured risk-of-bias instrument.

Areas of agreement: Twenty-four in vivo studies (predominantly rat, with mouse, rabbit and one sheep model) were identified. Immobilization angle and duration, rather than repair per se, appear to be dominant determinants of early healing. Biological and pharmacological augmentation strategies generally improve biomechanical properties, with less consistent histological change.

Areas of controversy: Controversies in this literature are of two kinds, substantive and methodological. Direct comparisons of repair versus non-repair are scarce, and reach divergent conclusions once immobilization is accounted for. Reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, blinding and sample-size justification is inconsistent and often absent.

Growing points: Cell- and vesicle-based therapies, engineered scaffolds and lineage-tracing/mechanistic models are actively reshaping this literature.

Areas timely for developing research: Consensus reference models with standardized transection, repair and immobilization protocols, explicit reporting of ankle angle, duration and method of immobilization, weight-bearing status and timing of mobilization, ARRIVE-compliant reporting, and embedding of biological augmentation within defined management models are needed to strengthen translational value.

跟腱断裂处理的体内动物模型:叙述性回顾。
简介:急性跟腱断裂是常见的,手术和非手术治疗之间的平衡仍然存在争议。为这场争论提供信息的许多机械证据来自体内动物模型,这些模型以前没有被作为一个类别进行评估。数据来源:检索PubMed/MEDLINE,检索跟腱/跟腱断裂、横断、肌腱切断术、缺损、修复及相关动物种类。人工检索纳入研究和相关评论的参考文献列表,并辅以灰色文献/网络扫描。该搜索最后一次更新是在2026年6月。考虑到物种、损伤模型、干预措施和结果测量的显著异质性,研究结果是综合叙述的,而不是定量汇总或根据结构化的偏倚风险工具进行评分。一致领域:确定了24项体内研究(主要是大鼠,小鼠,兔子和一只羊模型)。固定角度和持续时间,而不是修复本身,似乎是早期愈合的主要决定因素。生物和药物增强策略通常可以改善生物力学性能,但组织学变化不太一致。争议领域:本文献中的争议有两种,实质性和方法论。修复与非修复的直接比较很少,一旦固定被考虑,就会得出不同的结论。报告的随机化,分配隐藏,盲法和样本大小的理由是不一致的,往往没有。生长点:基于细胞和囊泡的疗法、工程化支架和谱系追踪/机制模型正在积极地重塑这一文献。需要及时开展研究的领域:有标准化横断、修复和固定协议的共识参考模型,明确报告踝关节角度、固定时间和方法、负重状态和活动时间,符合arrive标准的报告,以及在定义的管理模型中嵌入生物增强,以加强转化价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British medical bulletin
British medical bulletin 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.50%
发文量
24
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: British Medical Bulletin is a multidisciplinary publication, which comprises high quality reviews aimed at generalist physicians, junior doctors, and medical students in both developed and developing countries. Its key aims are to provide interpretations of growing points in medicine by trusted experts in the field, and to assist practitioners in incorporating not just evidence but new conceptual ways of thinking into their practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书