ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
Osteoscopic versus open surgery for the treatment of enchondroma in the foot.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe conventional treatment of enchondromas is the open surgery with curettage of lesions. Osteoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive endoscopic approach for lesions inside bone. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the osteoscopic surgery in comparison with the conventional open surgery for patients with foot enchondromas. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort study comparing patients with foot enchondromas treated with osteoscopic or open surgery from 2000 to 2019. Functional evaluations were based on both the AOFAS score and the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) functional rate. Complication and local recurrence were evaluated.
resultsSeventeen patients underwent endoscopic surgery, and eight patients underwent open surgery. The AOFAS score was higher in the osteoscopic group than the open group at 1 and 2 weeks after surgery (mean, 89.18 vs 67.25 [p = 0.001], 93.88 vs 79.38 [p = 0.004]). The MSTS functional rate was also higher in the osteoscopic group than the open group at 1 and 2 weeks after surgery (mean, 81.96 vs 59.58% [p = 0.00], 90.98 vs 75.00% [p = 0.02]). No statistical differences were found after 1-month of surgery. The osteoscopic group had lower complication rate than the open group (12 vs 50%; p = 0.04). No local recurrence was found in any groups.
conclusionThe osteoscopic surgery is feasible to provide earlier functional recovery and fewer complications than the open surgery.
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.