Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32266518›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2021

Open versus minimally-invasive surgery for Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis study.

Matthias Gatz, Arne Driessen, Jörg Eschweiler, Markus Tingart, Filippo Migliorini

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthias GatzDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. mgatz@ukaachen.de.
Arne DriessenDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Jörg EschweilerDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Markus TingartDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
RWTH Aachen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite the presence of various different surgical procedures, the preferable technique for repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures is unknown and, therefore, object of discussions. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes and complication-rates between the minimally invasive and the standard open repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. In September 2019 the main databases were accessed. All clinical trials of evidence level I to III comparing minimally invasive vs. open surgery of Achilles tendon rupture were included in the present study. Only articles reporting quantitative data under the outcomes of interest were included. Missing data under the outcomes of interest warranted the exclusion from the present work. For the statistical analysis we referred to the Review Manager Software Version 5.3. (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen). Continuous data were analysed through the inverse variance method. For the effect estimate the mean difference was used. Dichotomous data were analysed through the Mante-Haenszel method via odd ratio effect measure. The confidence interval was set at 95% in all the comparisons. Values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

resultsA total of 25 articles were included for meta-analysis. The funnel plot revealed poor data dispersion, attesting to this study a low risk of publication bias. The quality of the methodological assessment was moderate. Data from 2223 (1055 open, 1168 minimally invasive) surgical procedures were extracted. The mean follow-up was of 24.29 ± 22.4 months. The open group reported a lower value of post-operative palpable knot at last follow-up and a lower rate of sural nerve palsy. In the minimally-invasive group a shorter surgery duration and a lower rate of post-operative wound necrosis and reduced risk of wound scarring and adhesions has been evidenced. The minimally-invasive cohort detected the lowest values of superficial and deep infections. In both groups no significant difference was shown in re-rupture rate.

conclusionsCompared to the minimally-invasive Achilles tendon reconstruction, the open procedure evidenced a lower rate of sural nerve palsy and postoperative palpable knot, whereas in the minimally-invasive reconstruction group quicker surgery duration, a lower rate of post-operative wound necrosis, superficial and deep infections and less scar tissue adhesions could be observed. No relevant discrepancies were detected among the two techniques in terms of post-operative re-rupture.

Indexed as

Minimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOrthopedic ProceduresAchilles TendonHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRuptureTendon InjuriesAchilles tendon ruptureComplicationsMinimal invasiveOpen surgeryPercutaneous

Identifiers

PMID32266518
OpenAlexW3015058003

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.