Elevated fluid and glycosaminoglycan content in the Achilles tendon contribute to higher intratendinous pressures:Implications for Achilles tendinopathy

Background:Tendinopathy alters the compositional properties of the Achilles tendon by increasing fluid and glycosaminoglycan content.It has been speculated that these changes may affect intratendinous pressure,but the extent of this relationship remains unclear.Therefore,we aimed to investigate the impact of elevated fluid and glycosaminoglycan content on Achilles tendon intratendinous pressure and to determine whether hyaluronidase(HYAL) therapy can intervene in this potential relationship.Methods:Twenty paired fresh-frozen cadaveric Achilles tendons were mounted in a tensile-testing machine and loaded up to 5% strain.Intratendinous resting(at 0% strain) and dynamic pressure(at 5% strain) were assessed using the microcapillary infusion technique.First,intratendinous pressure was measured under native conditions before and after infusion of 2 mL physiological saline.Next,80 mg of glycosaminoglycans were administered bilaterally to the paired tendons.The right tendons were additionally treated with 1500 units of HYAL.Finally,both groups were retested,and the glycosaminoglycan content was analyzed.Results:It was found that both elevated fluid and glycosaminoglycan content resulted in higher intratendinous resting and dynamic pressures(p <0.001).HYAL treatment induced a 2.3-fold reduction in glycosaminoglycan content(p=0.002) and restored intratendinous pressures.Conclusion:The results of this study demonstrated that elevated fluid and glycosaminoglycan content in Achilles tendinopathy contribute to increased intratendinous re sting and dynamic pressures,which can be explained by the associated increased volume and reduced permeability of the tendon matrix,respectively.HYAL degrades glycosaminoglycans sufficiently to lower intratendinous pressures and may,therefore,serve as a promising treatment.

Measuring the immeasurable? Operationalising social capital in health research

During the last decennia, social capital has been a popular topic in social sciences. However, the concept is often used as a “catch all” for divers social characteristics. Consensus on how the concept should be measured is lacking. This keeps health researchers from drawing firm conclusions on the influence of social capital on health and hampers the decision on which social capital indicators to use in health research. This study compares five ways to operationalise social capital (generalized trust, a social network index, an expanded social network index, bonding, bridging and linking social capital and a multidimensional social capital index) in their ability to explain self-rated health and pain. To evaluate the models’ capacity to explain health, two logistic regression models were built, resulting in Nagelkerke R2 measures. Data were collected in a cross-sectional study in eight neighbourhoods in the region of Ghent (Belgium) by randomly sampling 50 adult inhabitants per neighbourhood. Findings show that the explanation of the observed variance in health by the studied social capital models ranges from 1.9% to 23.1%, but is more pronounced for self-rated health than for pain. The multidimensional social capital index explains most of the variance in health, but poses an important strain on the respondents due to a large number of surveyquestions. With some prudence, we presume that the explanatory added value of the more extended social capital models is rather limited from a practical point of view as the addition in explained variance of the other models seems not in relation to the number of questions needed. Researchers should weigh up the pros and cons of different manners to measure social capital carefully, taking the goals and focus of their study into account.