15 months = Full Marathon
just returned the NYC marathon, 15 months post injury. no achilles issues whatsoever 
- Brad has completed the grueling 26.2 ATR miles to full recovery!
Goal: 365 days from the surgery date.
- Brad has completed the grueling 26.2 ATR miles to full recovery!
Click here for the Group Marathon Tracker
ATR Timeline
- Name: Brad
Location: Ann Arbor
Injured during: Softball (running hard)
Which Leg: L
Status: 2-Shoes
804 wks 4 days Post-ATR
803 wks 4 days
Since start of treatment
- Name: Brad
-
Recent Posts
-
-2 AchillesBloggers
Name Status
-
-2 AchillesBloggers
Last Entries
Archives
on November 9th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Congratulations!
on November 9th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Well done!!
on November 9th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Somebody recently asked for examples of a ~100% wonderful non-surgical ATR recovery, and I should have thought of you as an example, Brad!
Way to go!
on November 9th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
thanks everyone. I did in fact go non surgical and couldn’t be happier with my decision.
While this story is more of the exception, the infection risk is zero with non-surgical:
http://trackfocus.com/distance/dathan-ritzenhein-recovering-from-post-operative-wound-infection
Non surgery worked for me and all the hobbling and hopping and scootering and gimping along is loooong gone
brad
on November 22nd, 2011 at 12:02 am
brad was yours a complete or partial ATR? how long were you immobilized, in boot, and how long was it from injury date till you were back walking w/o a boot?
congrats on the accomplishment!
on November 22nd, 2011 at 9:15 am
Hi Rome24kr.
I would say mine was a (full) rupture: I heard a ‘pop’ and went to the ground like the ground wasn’t even there.
I did NOT want to do the surgery, and thanks (mostly to NormoftheNorth) to this site, I went back to my Ortho with the Willits/London study, among others.
At my clinic (Univ of Michigan Foot/Ankle), they do this: Ultrasound with foot at 90 degrees, ultrasound with toes pointed down.
My measurements were ~7 mm and ~15mm. While I don’t know their limits, I was inside of them, ie it was my choice on surgical/non-surgical.
(Outside the limits they wont treat you non-surgical, someone else might)
So, my progression was one week in the boot until I decided non-surgical.
Got fitted for a cast with toes down at 28 degrees. Two weeks –> checkup. Cut the cast in half but decided to keep the cast one more week (velcro to clamp the pieces together).
Next checkup I went from cast to boot with wedges in the heel. So I was walking in this boot, with wedges at 3-4 weeks, depending on how you count the 5-7 days between rupture and the cast.
My doc was cautious, which slowed things but, in my opinion, did not limit anything in the long run (performance wise).
hope that helps.
keep the faith
brad
on November 23rd, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Rome (and Brad), there was ONE small study on the relationship between the size of the ATR gap and how well the UWO non-op protocol works. It was done by a subset of the UWO Docs. They examined the subset of the UWO patients who had gotten UltraSound exams that gave good gap measurements.
They found NO correlation between gap size and clinical outcome! So it’s always been logical to assume that non-op treatment would work better on small gaps, but that may be one more “logical-sounding but false” statements about ATR treatment.
The same study also found that gap LOCATION had no effect on outcome — though it DOES have an effect on SURGICAL outcome, which is why many surgeons refuse to operate on high ruptures.
It was a small study, and I don’t remember if any of the results were “statistically significant but suggestive”, or if they looked random or counter-logical. But so far I think it’s still all we’ve got. And it hasn’t stopped a LOT of surgeons and other experts from continuing to assume that the logical-sounding relationship MUST be true.
on November 23rd, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I would add that the surgery doesn’t sew the two pieces together across the rupture; it sews a pattern both above and below such that the ends are now close and they ‘cant’ get too far from each other.
But, the ends must still grow together, which is what tendons do…
on November 23rd, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Brad- looking at the 2nd picture from my surgery:
Pictures
It sure looks like they pulled the ends snugly together.
on November 23rd, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Nice pics
I agree that the ends are pulled together. I guess my point is that even with that the tendons need to grow back together.(ie the re-growth is the strength, the ‘gore-tex’ holds the ends close)
I do agree the upper end looks twisted and frayed. Not sure if any of that was cleaned up or just re-aligned with the lower piece.
on November 23rd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
On that point, you’re absolutely right. The stitches are akin to a cast. A cast holds your bone in place, so it can properly heal. The stitches pull the two ends of the tendon together and hold it in place, to promote healing. Once the tendon is healed, the stitches shouldn’t carry any load. You could take them out- just like, after the bones are healed, you can take a cast off. It’s just that, with the stitches, there is no need or reason to ever remove them.