Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1356–1360 | Cite as

Cross cultural adaptation of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score with reliability, validity and responsiveness evaluation

  • Michael R. Carmont
  • Karin Grävare Silbernagel
  • Katarina Nilsson-Helander
  • Omer Mei-Dan
  • Jon Karlsson
  • Nicola Maffulli



The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS) was developed because of the need for a reliable, valid and sensitive instrument to evaluate symptoms and their effects on physical activity in patients following either conservative or surgical management of an Achilles tendon rupture. Prior to using the score in larger randomized trial in an English-speaking population, we decided to perform reliability, validity and responsiveness evaluations of the English version of the ATRS. Even though the score was published in English, the actual English version has not be validated and compared to the results of the Swedish version.


From 2009 to 2010, all patients who received treatment for Achilles tendon rupture were followed up using the English version of the ATRS. Patients were asked to complete the score at 3, 6 and 12 months following treatment for Achilles tendon rupture. The ATRS was completed on arrival in the outpatient clinic and again following consultation.


The outcomes of 49 (13 female and 36 male) patients were assessed. The mean (SD) age was 49 (12) years, and 27 patients had treatment for a left-sided rupture, 22 the right. All patients received treatment for ruptured Achilles tendons: 38 acute percutaneous repair, 1 open repair, 5 an Achilles tendon reconstruction using a Peroneus Brevis tendon transfer for delayed presentation, 1 gracilis augmented repair for re-rupture and 4 non-operative treatment for mid-portion rupture. The English version of ATRS was shown to have overall excellent reliability (ICC = 0.986). There was no significant difference between the results with the English version and the Swedish version when compared at the 6-month- or 12-month (n.s.) follow-up appointments. The effect size was 0.93. The minimal detectable change was 6.75 points.


The ATRS was culturally adapted to English and shown to be a reliable, valid and responsive method of testing functional outcome following an Achilles tendon rupture.


Cross cultural ATRS Achilles Score 


  1. 1.
    Carmont MR, Maffulli N (2008) Modified percutaneous repair of the Achilles tendon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:199–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carmont MR, Maffulli N (2007) Less invasive Achilles tendon reconstruction. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cetti R, Christiansen SE, Ejsted R et al (1993) Treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. A prospective randomised study and review of the literature. Am J Sports Med 21:791–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denegar CR, Ball DW (1993) Assessing reliability and precision measurement: an introduction to intraclass correlation and standard error of measurement. J Sport Rehab 2:35–42Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hopkins WG (2000) Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30:1–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178–S189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kearney RS, Achten J, Lamb SE, Parsons N, Costa ML (2012) The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score: a study of responsiveness, internal consistency and convergent validity on patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 10:24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keating JF, Will EM (2011) Operative versus non-operative management of the acute rupture of the tendo Achillis: a prospective randomised evaluation of functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 8:1071–1078Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khan RJ, Fick D, Keogh A et al (2005) Treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2202–2210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS et al (1994) Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 15:349–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leppilahti J, Orava S (1998) Total Achilles tendon rupture: a review. Sports Med 25:79–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leppilahti J, Forsman K, Puranen J et al (1998) Outcome and prognositic factors of Achilles rupture repair using a new scoring method. Clin Orthop Relat Res 346:152–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maffulli N, Wateston SW, Squair J et al (1999) Changing incidence of Achilles tendon rupture in Scotland: a 15 year study. Clin J Sport Med 9:157–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Merkel M, Neumann HW, Merk H (1996) A new score for comparing outcome of surgical management of Achilles tendon ruptures. Chirug 67:1141–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moller M, Movin T, Granhed H et al (2001) Acute rupture of the tendon Achillis. A prospective randomised study of comparison between surgical and non surgical treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:843–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nilsson-Helander K, Thomee R, Silbernagel KG et al (2007) The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS): development and validation. Am J Sports Med 35:421–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nilsson-Helander K, Silbernagel KG, Thomee R et al (2010) Acute Achilles tendon rupture: a randomized controlled study comparing surgical and non surgical treatments using validated outcome measure. Am J Sports Med 38:2186–2193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nistor L (1981) Surgical and non-surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. A prospective randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63:394–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olsson N, Nilsson-Helander K, Karlsson J et al (2011) Major functional deficits persist 2 years after acute Achilles tendon rupture. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(8):1385–1393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rohner-Spengler M, Mannion AF, Babst R (2007) Reliability and minimal detectable change for the figure-of-eight-20 method of, measurement of ankle edema. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37:199–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silbernagel KG, Nilsson-Helander K, Thomee R et al (2010) A new measurement of heel-rise endurance with the ability to detect functional deficits in patients with Achilles tendon rupture. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:258–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thermann H (1996) Die funktionelle Behandlung der frischen Achillessehnen ruptur. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wallace RG, Heyes GJ, Michael AL (2011) The non-operative functional management of patients with a rupture of the tendo Achillis leads to low rates of re-rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(10):1362–1366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Willits K, Amendola A, Bryant D et al (2010) Operative versus non-operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a multicenter randomized trail using accelerated functional rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:767–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael R. Carmont
    • 1
  • Karin Grävare Silbernagel
    • 2
  • Katarina Nilsson-Helander
    • 3
  • Omer Mei-Dan
    • 4
  • Jon Karlsson
    • 5
  • Nicola Maffulli
    • 6
  1. 1.The Princess Royal HospitalTelfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Physical TherapySamson College of Health Professions, University of the SciencesPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of OrthopaedicsKungsbacka HospitalKungsbackaSweden
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic Sports MedicineThe University of Colorado HospitalDenverUSA
  5. 5.Department of OrthopaedicsSahlgrenska University HospitalMölindalSweden
  6. 6.Barts & the London School of Medicine and DentistryQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations