Self-reported pain with single leg heel raise or single leg hop offer distinct information as measures of severity in men with midportion and insertional Achilles tendinopathy: An observational cross-sectional study

Where is Your Pain? Achilles Tendinopathy Pain Location on Loading Is Different to Palpation, Imaging and Recall Location

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare pain maps reported during Achilles tendon loading exercises with recall pain location, in people with pain on palpation in their Achilles tendon and tendon pathology on imaging. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline RCT. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a larger Achilles tendinopathy clinical trial. Inclusion criteria were at least 2-month self-reported history of Achilles tendinopathy, midtendon palpation pain, and pathology on ultrasound tissue characterization. Participants were asked to identify their Achilles tendon pain location on a pain map with 8 prespecified locations while at rest prior to loading (recall pain), and subsequently during tendon loading exercises (loading pain). Participants could select multiple locations or select "other" if the locations did not represent their pain. RESULTS: Ninety-three participants were included (93% of participants from a clinical trial). The locations of pain on loading were diverse; all 8 pain locations (and an "other" option) were represented within this sample. Twenty-five percent of participants did not report pain with loading (n = 23 of 93). Of the 70 participants with loading pain, recall pain location differed to loading pain location in 40% (n = 28 of 70) of the participants. CONCLUSION: Palpation pain location, recall pain location, or location of pathology on imaging were not valid proxies for load-related pain in the Achilles tendon. How different pain locations respond to treatment is unknown. Some pathologies (eg, plantaris) have clear pain locations (eg, medial tendon), and assessing pain location may assist differential diagnosis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(1):1-9. Epub 7 December 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12131.

Putting the fear-avoidance model into practice - what can patients with chronic low back pain learn from patients with Achilles tendinopathy and vice versa?

BACKGROUND

Fear-avoidance variables are present in patients with musculoskeletal pain conditions, such as chronic low back pain (CLBP) and Achilles tendinopathy (AT) and can lead to reduced function and recovery. It is unknown how these variables relate in populations with different etiologies but similar pain provocation mechanisms.

OBJECTIVE

To compare kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, and disability between these two groups.

METHODS

Patients with CLBP and those with AT were included. Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-17) and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-13) were evaluated in both groups. The CLBP group completed the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the AT group completed the PROMIS-29 questionnaire. Gait speed was calculated for each group. Disability outcomes were normalized between groups.

RESULTS

119 patients in the CLBP group (64 female, 46 ± 8 years) and 83 patients in the AT group (42 female, 48 ± 12 years) were included. Both groups (CLBP, AT) presented with high prevalence of kinesiophobia (67%, 55%) but the CLBP group presented with higher prevalence of pain catastrophizing (22%, 2%). The CLBP group demonstrated higher levels of disability via normalized ODI (MD= 12.4, 95% CI: 9.2, 15.5) but the AT group demonstrated slower gait speed (MD= 0.1 m/s, 95% CI: 0.0, 0.2).

CONCLUSION

Similarly high prevalence of kinesiophobia was found in patients with CLBP and patients with AT. While the CLBP group reported greater prevalence of catastrophizing thoughts and greater disability, the AT group had slower gait speed. Overall, these findings demonstrate that CLBP and AT have similarities that may allow clinicians to learn from one to inform treatment of the other.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT03523325, ISRCTN17115599.

Data driven model of midportion achilles tendinopathy health created with factor analysis

Background

Achilles tendinopathy is a complex injury and the clinical presentation spans multiple different domains: physical and psychological symptoms, lower extremity function and tendon structure. A conceptual model of Achilles tendon health comprising these domains has been proposed in the literature. The aim of the study was to fit a model of Achilles tendinopathy using factor analysis and compare that to the conceptual model. An inclusive approach using a wide range of variables spanning multiple potential domains were included.

Methods

Participants (N = 99) with midportion Achilles tendinopathy were assessed with variables representing symptoms, physical function, tendon structure, metabolic syndrome, and psychologic symptoms. A Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin index was used to determine suitable variables for a subsequent exploratory factor analysis.

Results

A model emerged with an acceptable fit to the data (standardized root mean square of residuals = 0.078). Five uncorrelated factors emerged from the model and were labelled as biopsychosocial, lower extremity function, body size, load tolerance, and tendon structure. The total explained variance was 0.51 with the five factors explaining 0.14, 0.12, 0.10, 0.08, and 0.07 respectively. The results differed from the conceptual model as the factors of psychological variables and metabolic variables did not emerge from the analysis.

Conclusion

A data driven model of Achilles tendon health supports assessment of the clinical presentation over multiple domains. As the factors are uncorrelated, the results of assessment of, for example, tendon structure should not be expected to be associated with lower extremity function or biopsychosocial limitations. The results suggest that the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, counter-movement jump height, body mass index, pain with hopping, and the tendon cross-sectional area can evaluate the five factors, respectively.

Trial registration

Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (Medicine NL of. ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet], 2018), ID number NCT03523325.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05702-1.

The clinical diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy: a scoping review

Background

Achilles tendinopathy describes the clinical presentation of pain localised to the Achilles tendon and associated loss of function with tendon loading activities. However, clinicians display differing approaches to the diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy due to inconsistency in the clinical terminology, an evolving understanding of the pathophysiology, and the lack of consensus on clinical tests which could be considered the gold standard for diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy. The primary aim of this scoping review is to provide a method for clinically diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy that aligns with the nine core health domains.

Methodology

A scoping review was conducted to synthesise available evidence on the clinical diagnosis and clinical outcome measures of Achilles tendinopathy. Extracted data included author, year of publication, participant characteristics, methods for diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy and outcome measures.

Results

A total of 159 articles were included in this scoping review. The most commonly used subjective measure was self-reported location of pain, while additional measures included pain with tendon loading activity, duration of symptoms and tendon stiffness. The most commonly identified objective clinical test for Achilles tendinopathy was tendon palpation (including pain on palpation, localised tendon thickening or localised swelling). Further objective tests used to assess Achilles tendinopathy included tendon pain during loading activities (single-leg heel raises and hopping) and the Royal London Hospital Test and the Painful Arc Sign. The VISA-A questionnaire as the most commonly used outcome measure to monitor Achilles tendinopathy. However, psychological factors (PES, TKS and PCS) and overall quality of life (SF-12, SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L) were less frequently measured.

Conclusions

There is significant variation in the methodology and outcome measures used to diagnose Achilles tendinopathy. A method for diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy is proposed, that includes both results from the scoping review and recent recommendations for reporting results in tendinopathy.