Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24190345›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2014

Percutaneous versus open repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures.

Panagiotis K Karabinas, Ioannis S Benetos, Kalliopi Lampropoulou-Adamidou, Pavlos Romoudis, Andreas F Mavrogenis, John Vlamis

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The Fragility of Statistical Findings in Achilles Tendon Injury Research: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Panagiotis K KarabinasThird Department of Orthopaedics, Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Ioannis S Benetos
Kalliopi Lampropoulou-Adamidou
Pavlos Romoudis
Andreas F Mavrogenis
John Vlamis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundControversy exists regarding the optimal treatment for acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Conservative and surgical treatments have been reported with variable results and complications rates. The purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative clinical and functional results of percutaneous versus open repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe present 34 patients with acute Achilles tendon ruptures treated with open and percutaneous surgical repair. There were 15 patients who had open surgical repair and 19 patients who had percutaneous repair. The mean follow-up was 22 months (range 10-24 months) for the open repair group and 20 months (range 9-24 months) for the percutaneous repair group; no patient was lost to follow-up. Postoperative rehabilitation was the same for both groups. Wound healing, complications, ankle range of motion, and patients' return to work, activity level, weight-bearing, and subjective assessment of their treatment were recorded.

resultsNo significant difference was observed with respect to any of the examined variables between the open and percutaneous repair groups. Tendon healing was observed in all patients of both groups by 7-9 weeks. The mean time of patients' return to work was 7 weeks for the open repair group and 9 weeks for the percutaneous repair group. All patients were capable of full weight bearing by the 8th postoperative week time; the time to return to previous activities including non-contact sports was 5 months for both groups. All patients expressed satisfaction and graded their treatment as good. As expected, cosmetic appearance was significantly better in the percutaneous repair group. One patient who had open repair experienced skin incision pain and dysesthesia and graded his operation as fair. No patient experienced other complications such as re-rupture, infection, sural neuroma, or Achilles tendinitis within the period of this study.

conclusionsThe present study showed similarly successful clinical and functional results after both open and percutaneous repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures are similar. Cosmetic appearance is superior in the group of patients who had a percutaneous treatment.

Indexed as

Achilles TendonAdultAnkle InjuriesArthroscopyAthletic InjuriesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedOrthopedic ProceduresRecovery of FunctionRuptureSural NerveTendon Injuries

Identifiers

PMID24190345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.