ArticleBMC surgery2025
Comparison of arthroscopy-assisted versus open reduction and fixation for treating scaphoid fractures.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What's New in Hand and Wrist Arthroscopy: Indications, Techniques, and Emerging Applications.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2027Review
- Open Versus Arthroscopic Reduction for Perilunate and Lunate Dislocations: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Fixation Techniques for Scaphoid Fractures: A Narrative Review.Orthopedic reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesScaphoid fractures represent the most common type of carpal fracture. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate and compare the therapeutic efficacy of wrist arthroscopy-assisted fixation versus conventional open reduction with fixation for scaphoid fractures.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 159 patients with acute scaphoid fractures. Participants were stratified into two groups: the open reduction with fixation group (underwent open reduction and fixation) and the Arthroscopy group (received wrist arthroscopy-assisted fixation). Comparative analyses included operative duration, hospitalization length, fracture union time, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores. Wrist functionality and range of motion were assessed using the Mayo wrist joint function scoring scale. Additionally, patient satisfaction was evaluated through a standardized questionnaire.
resultsFollowing propensity score matching (PSM), 54 matched pairs were analyzed. Baseline characteristics showed no significant intergroup differences. The Arthroscopy group exhibited statistically superior outcomes, including shorter operative time, reduced hospitalization, accelerated fracture union, and lower postoperative VAS scores. Mayo Wrist Scores were significantly higher in the Arthroscopy group, indicating better functional recovery. Furthermore, the Arthroscopy group demonstrated a lower overall complication rate and significantly improved scores in both physical and psychological assessment domains.
conclusionsWrist arthroscopy-assisted fixation significantly enhances postoperative recovery, yielding superior functional outcomes, reduced complications, and higher patient satisfaction compared to the open reduction with fixation group. This technique represents a promising approach for optimizing scaphoid fracture management.
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.