ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2026
Results of Achilles Insertional Repair Techniques: Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Repair.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Insertional Achilles tendinopathy (IAT) is a common yet challenging condition that often resists conservative treatment. Traditional open surgical repair carries risk of complications including delayed wound healing and infection. This study compares the outcomes of a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique using arthroscopic-assisted double-row repair vs open repair. Methods: Fifty-six patients with IAT underwent surgical intervention between June 2021 and September 2024 (32 MIS, 24 open). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed pre- and post-operatively with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Six patients were excluded from analysis for comparability between groups. Statistical analysis used 2-tailed Results: The MIS group had significantly worse preoperative scores compared with the open group. But at a mean follow-up of 2.2 years for the MIS group and 2.0 years for the open group, the MIS group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function and visual analog scale scores ( Conclusion: Despite limitations necessitating further studies, our results begin to suggest superior functional outcomes following MIS repair for IAT compared to traditional open repair, supporting MIS as a potentially safer and more effective alternative for appropriate patients. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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.