RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Achilles tendinopathy is a common type of overuse condition, with isolated eccentric loading (ECL) programmes being the principal conservative treatment of choice. However, alternative protocols, involving different contraction types, have more recently been investigated. The purpose of the present review was to examine the evidence from studies comparing two or more different types of loading programmes in relation to patient-reported outcomes for people with Achilles tendinopathy. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken, and the risk of bias of included papers were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. An electronic search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and SPORTDiscus was undertaken from their inception to May 2018. The eligibility criteria for selecting studies were randomized controlled or clinical controlled trials investigating two or more different loading programmes for chronic (>3 months) Achilles tendinopathy. RESULTS: Seven articles were included in the review. Low-quality evidence exists that a do-as-tolerated modification of the Alfredson programme is more effective than the standardized programme at improving function in the short term. Very-low-quality evidence suggests that ECL is superior at reducing pain levels than concentric in isolation, but no more effective at improving pain or disability than concentric-eccentric programmes. CONCLUSIONS: There is conflicting evidence regarding the superiority of ECL over other contraction types, challenging the current approach to managing Achilles tendinopathy. There is also evidence that do-as-tolerated repetition volumes are more effective at improving function in the short term compared with those recommended by the standardized Alfredson protocol.
