ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2023
Absorbable vs Nonabsorbable Sutures for Achilles Tendon Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound-guided Achilles tendon rupture repair using knotless barbed suture: a cadaveric study.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Article
- Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures in Achilles tendon rupture repair: a retrospective cohort study evaluating medium- to long-term outcomes via musculoskeletal ultrasound and functional metrics.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Intraoperative Application of Hyaluronic Acid in Achilles Tendon Repair: A Retrospective Cohort Study on Short-Term Functional Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- [Acute rupture of the Achilles tendon : Diagnostics, treatment and aftercare].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nonabsorbable sutures are still the main choice for acute Achilles tendon rupture (AATR) repair due to strength provided. However, the rerupture rates, infection risks, foreign body reaction, and postsurgical recovery differences between absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials in AATR repair have not been carefully reviewed. Methods: A systematic review was done on PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase to find research studies in relation to complications associated with AATR repair using the PRISMA guidelines. The risk of bias from each study included will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized study (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for nonrandomized study. Results: Five studies with a total of 255 patients, 105 in the absorbable suture group and 150 in the nonabsorbable suture group, were included for analysis. Risk of rerupture, infection, and foreign body reaction shown no significant difference between groups, and the mean difference of recovery scores were similar. Conclusion: Existing literature shows that absorbable sutures appear to be associated with similar outcomes to nonabsorbable sutures regarding rates of rerupture, infection, foreign body reaction, and outcomes grading following surgical repair of acute Achilles tendon repair.
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.