SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025
Minimally invasive versus open surgery for acute achilles tendon rupture: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. 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.
- The Biomechanical Behavior of Selected Achilles Tendon Revision Constructs: An Exploratory Cadaveric Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- [Differentiated diagnostics and treatment of Achilles tendon rupture].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Achilles tendon rupture is a common injury requiring surgical intervention. The choice between Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) and Open Surgery (OS) has been widely debated. This umbrella review synthesized the results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing outcomes of MIS and OS for acute Achilles tendon rupture. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. The AMSTAR-2 checklist was employed to assess the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data on complication rates, surgical times, functional outcomes, and other patient-centric metrics were extracted and analyzed. Results: An aggregate of 6,480 participants were drawn from 7 included studies (not de-duplicated across overlapping trials). The primary outcomes were re-rupture and validated functional recovery scores; key complications included infection and sural nerve injury; secondary endpoints included operative time and return-to-sport. Searches, selection, and extraction followed prespecified criteria. Because the unit of analysis was published evidence syntheses and the underlying randomized trials overlapped with heterogeneous outcome definitions, results were synthesized qualitatively rather than pooled quantitatively. Across reviews, minimally invasive and open repair showed broadly comparable clinical effectiveness, with differences contingent on technique, perioperative protocols, and follow-up windows. Conclusion: MIS appears to offer significant advantages over OS for the repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures, including reduced complication rates and faster recovery times, without compromising the effectiveness of the repair in preventing re-ruptures. However, the potential for nerve injury with MIS warrants careful consideration. Decisions regarding surgical techniques should be tailored to individual patient circumstances and the specific expertise of the surgical team.
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.