Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38321415›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2024

Comparison of percutaneous and open repair of Achilles tendon rupture: results and complications from a single institution.

Fabijan Čukelj, Dejan Blažević, Fabijan Čukelj, Srećko Sabalić, Ivan Benčić, Tomislav Ćuti, Dinko Pivalica, Bore Bakota, Dinko Vidović

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Fabijan ČukeljDepartment of Traumatology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Draškovićeva 19, Zagreb, 10000, Croatia.
Dejan BlaževićDepartment of Traumatology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Draškovićeva 19, Zagreb, 10000, Croatia. dejan.blazevic@live.com.
Fabijan ČukeljDepartment of Traumatology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Draškovićeva 19, Zagreb, 10000, Croatia.
Srećko SabalićDepartment of Traumatology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Draškovićeva 19, Zagreb, 10000, Croatia.
Ivan BenčićDepartment of Traumatology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Draškovićeva 19, Zagreb, 10000, Croatia.
Tomislav ĆutiDepartment of Traumatology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Draškovićeva 19, Zagreb, 10000, Croatia.
Dinko PivalicaDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation with Rheumatology, University Hospital of Split, Spinčićeva 1, Split, 21000, Croatia.
Bore BakotaTauern Klinikum, Paracelsusstrasse 8, Zell am See, 5700, Austria.
Dinko VidovićSchool of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Šalata 3, Zagreb, 10000, Croatia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Achilles tendon is the strongest tendon in the human body, but it is prone to injury, especially in modern times when recreational sports are growing in popularity. As a result, Achilles tendon rupture is becoming an increasingly common medical problem in modern society. The main objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of percutaneous repair and open repair for the treatment of Achilles tendon rupture.

methodsA retrospective study was conducted involving a total of 316 patients who had undergone surgical treatment for Achilles tendon rupture between 2013 and 2021. The data collected from the medical history of these patients included the type of surgical procedure, the mechanism of injury, the age and sex of the patients, the time spent in the hospital, and any possible complications of the surgical treatment (such as infections, reruptures, or sural nerve injuries).

resultsThe study revealed that there was no significant difference between percutaneous and open surgical approaches in terms of sural nerve injury. However, there was a statistically significant advantage of the percutaneous method in terms of the number of infections, which was significantly lower than that of the open method. Additionally, the median length of hospital stay was found to be four days longer with the open approach. However, the study noted that a statistically significant advantage of the percutaneous method for rerupture could not be established due to the small number of patients with rerupture and the insufficient ratio of patients with rerupture in relation to the size of the observed population.

conclusionsPercutaneous repair is an effective treatment option for Achilles tendon rupture and has outcomes equal to or better than those of open repair. Therefore, this approach is recommended as the preferred method of treatment due to the presence of fewer complications, provided that the indications for this technique are appropriate.

Indexed as

Achilles TendonAnkle InjuriesTendon InjuriesHumansRetrospective StudiesRuptureTreatment OutcomeAchilles tendonAchilles tendon ruptureOpen repairPercutaneous repair

Identifiers

PMID38321415
PMCPMC10845635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.