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.