ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2026
Open vs Endoscopic Surgical Treatment for Haglund Deformity: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Haglund deformity, characterized by a bony prominence at the posterosuperior aspect of the calcaneus, is a frequent cause of posterior heel pain and Achilles tendinopathy. When conservative treatment fails, surgical resection is indicated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical and functional outcomes of open and endoscopic surgery in adults with Haglund deformity. Methods: The review followed PRISMA guidelines, was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251061639), and included randomized trials or observational cohort studies directly comparing both techniques. The primary outcome was postoperative ankle function (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score or the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles questionnaire scores); secondary outcomes included operative time, postoperative pain (visual analog scale), and adverse events. Random effects (restricted maximum likelihood) meta-analyses were performed, and risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results: Five cohort studies, totaling 226 patients (127 endoscopic, 99 open), met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative ankle function between techniques (standardized mean difference = -0.19, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.35; Conclusion: The available comparative observational evidence does not demonstrate clear superiority of either technique for the evaluated outcomes. Interpretation of symptom and function outcomes is limited by the measurement properties of the instruments used in the source studies. These findings represent a conservative synthesis of the best comparative evidence currently available and highlight the need for adequately powered randomized clinical trials with standardized outcome measures to more reliably inform surgical decision making.
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.