Long Term Clinical–Functional and Ultrasound Outcomes in Recreational Athletes after Achilles Tendon Rupture: Ma and Griffith Versus Tenolig

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the long-term clinical–functional and ultrasound outcomes of recreational athletes treated with two percutaneous techniques: Ma and Griffith (M&G) and the Tenolig technique (TT). Materials and Methods: recreational athletes, between 18 and 50 years of age, affected by acute Achilles tendon rupture (AATR), treated by M&G or Tenolig techniques were recruited. Clinical–functional outcomes were evaluated using Achilles Tendon Rupture Score (ATRS), AOFAS Ankle–Hindfoot score, VAS (for pain and satisfaction) questionnaires, and ultrasound analysis (focal thickening, hypoechoic areas, presence of calcifications, tendinitis and alteration of normal fibrillar architecture). Results: 90 patients were included: 50 treated by M&G, 40 by TT. In all, 90% of patients resumed sports activities, with pre-injury levels in 56% of cases after M&G and in 60% after TT. In the M&G group, the averages of the questionnaires were ATRS 90.70 points, AOFAS 91.03, VAS satisfaction 7.08, and VAS pain 1.58. In the TT group: ATRS 90.38 points, AOFAS 90.28, VAS satisfaction 7.76, and VAS pain 1.34. The TT group showed a significantly higher satisfaction and return to sport activities within a shorter time. In the M&G group, ultrasound check showed a significantly greater incidence of thickening and an alteration of fibrillar architecture in the treated tendon. Three infections were reported, including one deep after M&G, two superficial in the TT group, and two re-ruptures in the Tenolig group following a further trauma. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, M&G and TT are both valid techniques for the treatment of AATRs in recreational athletes, achieving comparable clinical–functional results. However, TT seems to have a higher patient satisfaction rate, a faster return to sports and physical activities, and fewer ultrasound signs of tendinitis. Finally, the cost of the device makes this technique more expensive.