SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Comparison between arthroscopic surgery and open reduction internal fixation in patients with posterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies comparing arthroscopic surgery with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial avulsion fracture have exploded in recent years; however, the results are not consistent. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize the efficacy and safety profile of arthroscopic surgery and ORIF in patients with PCL tibial avulsion fracture.
methodsRelevant studies were searched across the Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Wan Fang, CNKI, and VIP databases. The standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was pooled for analyses.
resultsTwenty-seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with those in the ORIF group, the incision length (SMD: -4.701, 95%CI: -5.717~-3.686), perioperative bleeding (SMD: -3.304, 95%CI: -3.834~-2.774), postoperative drainage volume (SMD: -1.071, 95%CI: -1.870~-0.273), time to first ambulation (SMD: -2.294, 95%CI: -4.127~-0.460), and hospital stays (SMD: -1.918, 95%CI: -2.594~-1.242) were lower, but the operation duration (SMD: 1.998, 95%CI: 0.595 ~ 3.401) was greater in the arthroscopy group. After treatment, the Lysholm score (SMD: 1.424, 95%CI: 0.858 ~ 2.837), International Knee Documentation Committee score (SMD: 1.848, 95%CI: 0.858 ~ 2.837), range of motion (SMD: 0.527, 95%CI: 0.001 ~ 1.053) were greater in the arthroscopy group than in the ORIF group, but no statistically significant difference was observed in the pain score (SMD: -0.250, 95%CI: -0.664 ~ 0.165), and posterior drawer test negative rate (OR: 1.040, 95%CI: 0.460 ~ 2.351). Moreover, the incidence of postoperative complications (OR: 0.458, 95%CI: 0.149 ~ 1.411) was not significantly different between the arthroscopy group and the ORIF group.
conclusionArthroscopic surgery appears to provide better functional outcomes and a comparable risk of complications than ORIF does to some extent, although longer operative time and study heterogeneity warrant caution, for PCL tibial avulsion fracture.
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.