ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2026
Open vs Arthroscopic Tibiotalar Arthrodesis: A Comparative Cohort Study from an Asian Tertiary Center.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tibiotalar arthrodesis remains the standard surgical treatment for end-stage ankle arthritis. Although arthroscopic techniques are increasingly used, differences in operative time, complication profiles, and union rates between arthroscopic and open techniques remain inconsistently reported. In Asian populations, degenerative ankle arthritis is frequently associated with varus coronal deformity, which may influence surgical approach selection and outcomes. This study compared perioperative outcomes, radiographic union, postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcomes between open and arthroscopic tibiotalar arthrodesis. Methods: This study included 83 adult patients who underwent isolated tibiotalar arthrodesis at a single tertiary institution between January 2004 and December 2024 using either an open (n = 30) or arthroscopic (n = 53) approach. Perioperative outcomes, radiographic time to union, postoperative complications, and 6-month patient-reported outcomes were compared. Results: With the numbers available, no significant difference could be detected in the primary outcome of time to radiographic union between the arthroscopic and open cohorts (120.0 ± 99.5 vs 113.1 ± 73.0 days, respectively; Conclusion: In this comparative cohort, with the numbers available, no significant differences were detected in radiographic union, early functional outcomes, or overall complication rates between arthroscopic and open tibiotalar arthrodesis. Fewer reoperations were observed in the arthroscopic cohort, which was generally composed of patients with less severe deformity. Both arthroscopic and open tibiotalar arthrodesis remain reasonable treatment options when selected according to patient characteristics, deformity severity, and surgical requirements. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative cohort 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.