ReviewCureus2024
Outcomes of Fasciotomy Versus Conservative Management for Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of shoelace technique versus conventional secondary suturing for delayed closure of limited fasciotomy wounds.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Challenges in diagnosing and treating chronic exertional compartment syndrome: perspective from a student nurse with lower extremity pain.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of surgical fasciotomy and conservative management for chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) concerning symptom relief, functional recovery, and patient satisfaction. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library identified studies comparing surgical fasciotomy with conservative management for CECS. Four studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising both retrospective and prospective cohort designs. The primary outcomes were pain reduction (assessed using the visual analog scale), return to activity (measured by the Tegner scale), and functional recovery (evaluated through the Short Form-36 (SF-36) quality-of-life score). Secondary outcomes included complication rates and patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses were performed to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), while heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Surgical fasciotomy demonstrated significantly greater pain reduction compared to conservative management (SMD: -0.46, 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.17, p = 0.002), with low heterogeneity (I² = 13%). Patient satisfaction was also significantly higher in the surgical group (OR: 3.51, 95% CI: 2.19 to 5.60, p < 0.00001). However, no significant difference was observed in return-to-activity rates (OR: 3.70, 95% CI: 0.53 to 25.96, p = 0.19), with high heterogeneity (I² = 88%). Complications associated with fasciotomy included hematomas, nerve injuries, and scar-related issues, while conservative treatment showed moderate effectiveness in milder cases. Surgical fasciotomy offers superior pain relief and higher patient satisfaction compared to conservative management for CECS. However, the evidence for return-to-activity rates remains inconsistent. Future research should focus on randomized controlled trials and standardized outcome measures to refine treatment strategies.
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.