Aim: The aims of this study were: 1) to estimate the prevalence and pattern of complications after Achilles tendon (AT) repair, and 2) to determine the significant predictors of post-operative infection. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of all patients who were operated at Hamad General Hospital (HGH) between June 2010 and June 2012 for AT rupture (n = 102), was conducted. Data was collected on 1) patient’ characteristics such as age, sex; 2) disease characteristics such as mechanism of rupture, type of rupture (partial or complete), whether an anterior or posterior slab was applied, number of suture materials, number of antibiotics, surgical time, time to surgery and length of hospital stay (LOS), number of follow up visits, and 3) complications. Descriptive and analytical statistical analyses were applied. Receiver operating characteristic curve was applied to identify the validity of different LOS values, with a significance level at p ≤ 0.05. Results: Of the 102 patients with Achilles rupture, almost males (96.1%), with a mean age 31.07 ± 9.71 years, 52% with complete rupture, the majority were open ruptures (81.4%) and bathroom-related (70.6%). Anterior slab was applied to 58.2% and 2 types of suture materials to 71.6% of cases. Fifteen cases (14.7%, 95% CI: 7.8% - 21.6%) presented with one or more complications (9.8% post-operative infections, 5.9% stiffness and 2% re-rupture). Post-operative infections were significantly associated with: old age (z = 2.11, p = 0.035), longer LOS (z = 2.01, p = 0.04), and presence of diabetes (Fisher exact test: p = 0.003). After adjustment for age, LOS (p = 0.04) and diabetes (p = 0.017) remained as significant predictors of post-operative infections. LOS of 2.5 days was the optimum cut-off point above which post-operative infection is more likely to occur, with sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 54%. Conclusion: Achilles repair post operative infection ranks first as a complication of AT surgical repair, and its incidence is relatively higher in HGH than the counterpart figures in the literature. The presences
 J. Leppilahti, J. Puranen and S. Orava, “Incidence of Achilles Tendon Rupture,” Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, Vol. 67, No. 3, 1996, pp. 277-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453679608994688
 J. Ufberg, R. A. Harrigan, T. Cruz, et al., “Orthopedic Pitfalls in the ED: Achilles Tendon Rupture,” American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 7, 2004, pp. 596-600. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.ajem.2004.09.007
 J. M. Weatherall, K. Mroczek and N. Tejwani, “Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures,” Orthopedics, Vol. 33, No. 10, 2010, pp. 758-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20100826-21
 T. M. Hufner, D. B. Brandes, H. Thermann, M. Richter, K. Knobloch and C. Krettek, “Long-Term Results after Functional Nonoperative Treatment of Achilles Tendon Rupture,” Foot & Ankle International, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2006, pp. 167-171.
 M. M?ller, T. Movin, H. Granhed, K. Lind, E. Faxén and J. Karlsson, “Acute Rupture of Tendon Achillis. A Prospective Randomised Study of Comparison between Surgical and Non-Surgical Treatment,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Vol. 83, No. 6, 2001, pp. 843-848.