ArticleSingapore medical journal2019
Lateral versus central tendon-splitting approach to insertional Achilles tendinopathy: a retrospective study.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic versus open surgery for insertional achilles tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative outcomes.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Single-Row Repair Versus Double-Row Repair in the Surgical Management of Achilles Insertional Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Review
- Lateral approach for insertional Achilles tendinitis with Haglund deformity.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to compare operative outcomes between the lateral approach (LA) and the central approach (CA) to insertional Achilles tendinopathy (IAT).
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent surgical treatment for IAT using the LA or CA. Patients' demographic data, postoperative complications and satisfaction rate were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were prospectively assessed preoperatively, at three months postoperatively and at the last visit, including patients' visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale scores and 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores.
resultsThere were 39 patients in the LA group and 32 in the CA group. In each group, average VAS and AOFAS Scale scores improved significantly. SF-36 scores improved in most parameters. No significant difference in baseline score; average AOFAS Scale score at each visit; and mean VAS score preoperatively and at last visit; satisfaction rate; and overall complication rate were observed between the groups. The mean VAS score in the LA group at postoperative three months was significantly lower than that in the CA group (2.7 ± 2.5 vs. 4.4 ± 3.0; p = 0.016). There were significantly more cases of delayed wound healing in the LA group than in the CA group (2.6% vs. 15.6%; p = 0.049).
conclusionBoth approaches had comparable outcomes for IAT in terms of functional improvement, pain relief, overall enhancement of patients' health condition and overall postoperative complication rate. The LA provided better short-term pain relief and reduced delayed wound healing compared with the CA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.