ArticleOrthopedic reviews2026
Open versus arthroscopic triangular fibrocartilage repairs: a narrative review.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) stabilizes the distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) and transmits load across the wrist. While many injuries respond to conservative care, certain tear patterns require surgery. Open and arthroscopic repairs are both used, but the optimal approach is debated. Arthroscopy offers minimally invasive access, assessment of concomitant injuries, and faster early recovery, whereas open repair is traditionally preferred for complex or foveal tears. Despite comparable outcomes, the optimal technique remains uncertain. Objectives: This narrative review compares open and arthroscopic TFCC repair, focusing on indications, techniques, complications, and evolving strategies to guide clinical decision-making. Methods: A non-systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (2005-2025) was performed. Key studies on open and arthroscopic TFCC repair were reviewed and synthesized. Results: Both open and arthroscopic repairs yield similar mid-term patient-reported outcomes. Arthroscopic repair may permit earlier recovery and carries a slightly lower soft-tissue complication risk. Open repair offers direct visualization and is advantageous for complex or foveal lesions. No clear differences in DRUJ stability, functional scores, or return-to-activity times were identified, though available data remain limited. Complication profiles vary between techniques. Conclusion: Open and arthroscopic TFCC repairs provide reliable results, with neither demonstrating overall superiority. Technique selection should be individualized based on tear pattern, DRUJ stability, and patient factors. Advances in arthroscopy and biologic augmentation may enhance outcomes, but high-quality comparative studies are needed to define optimal 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.