Table- 4.
Distribution of regeneration of tendons across different studies.
| Sl No | Authors | Method of assessment | Total cases | ST | G | Both ST and G | Total regeneration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Cross et al. 19927 | MRI | 4a | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4 |
| 2. | Eriksson et al.199918 | MRI | 11 | 8/11 | 0/11 | 0 | 8 |
| 3. | Papandrea et al.200026 | USG | 40 | 40/40 | 0/40 | 0 | 40 |
| 4. | Eriksson et al. 200136 | MRI/Biopsy | 6 | 5/6 | 0/6 | 0 | 5 |
| 5. | Eriksson et al.200119 | MRI/USG-guided biopsy | 16 | 12/16 | 0/16 | 0 | 12 |
| 6. | Rispoli et al.200127 | MRI | 20 | 20/20 | 20/20 | 20/20 | 20 |
| 7. | Nakamura et al.200439 | 3D-CT, MRI | 8 | 5/8 | 0/8 | 0 | 5 |
| 8. | Tadokoro et al.200442 | MRI | 28 | 22/28 | 13/28 | NR | 22 |
| 9 | Williams et al.200418 | MRI | 8 | 7/8 | 8/8 | NR | 7 |
| 10. | Burks et al.20058 | MRI | 9 | 9/9 | 9/9 | 9/9 | 9 |
| 11 | Nakamae et al.200522 | 3D-CT | 29 | 27/29 | NR | NR | 27 |
| 12. | Takeda et al.200629 | MRI | 11 | 11/11 | 9/11 | 11 | |
| 13. | Okahashi et al.200625 | Surgical Biopsy | 11 | 7/11 | NR | NR | Single tendon, no differentiation in to ST or G |
| 14. | Nishino et al.200623 | MRI | 23 | 21/23 | 0/23 | 21 | |
| 15. | Nakamae et al.201240 | 3D-CT | 39 | 38/39 | 0/39 | 38 | |
| 16. | Snow et al.201241 | MRI | 10 | NR | NR | NR | Tissue visible cannot be identified as tendon |
| 17. | Murakami et al.201221 | MRI | 20 | 20/20 | 0/20 | 20 | |
| 18. | Choi et al.201217 | MRI | 45 | 36/45 | 34/45 | 30/45 | 36 |
| 19. | Alhen et al.201233 | MRI | 19 | 17/19 | 18/19 | 17 | |
| 20. | Bedi et al.201335 | USG | 15 (18 knees) | NR | NR | NR | Tissues identified, did not have structural and functional properties similar to tendons. |
| 21. | Janssen et al.201320 | MRI | 22 | 14/22 | 22/22 | 14/22 | 22 |
| 22. | Stevanovic et al.201328 | USG/USG guided Biopsy | 50 | 33/50 | 0/50 | 33 | |
| 23. | Alhen et al.201434 | USG guided Biopsy | 18 | 18/18 | NR | NR | 18 |
| 24. | Nomura et al.201424 | MRI | 24 | 21/24 | 0/24 | 21 | |
| 25. | Zaccherotti et al.201532 | MRI | 20 | 14/20 | 14/20 | 14/20 | 14 |
| 26. | Tsifountoudis et al.201530 | MRI | 47 | 40/47 | 41/47 | 5/47 | 41 |
| 27. | Konrath et al.201637 | MRI | 20 | 8/20 | 12/20 | 7/20 | 12 |
| 28. | Suijkerbuijk et al. 201812 | MRI | 79 | 53/79 | 64/79 | 47/79 | 64 |
| 29. | Albertoni et al.201816 | MRI | 29 (30 knees) | 25/30 | 30/30 | 25/29 | 30 |
| 30. | Lee et al.201938 | MRI and USG | 120 | 100/120 | 46/60 | 46/120 | 97 |
| Total | 805 | 635 | 344 | 213 |
a
out of 225 patients only 4 were analyzed in detail for regeneration of hamstring tendon, ST- Semitendinosus, G- Gracilis, NR- Not reported, MRI- magnetic resonance imaging, USG-ultrasonography, 3D-CT-three-dimensional computer tomography.