Author
Listed:
- Haidong Deng
- Xin Cheng
- Yi Yang
- Fang Fang
- Jialing He
- Yixin Tian
- Tiangui Li
- Yangchun Xiao
- Yuning Feng
- Peng Wang
- Weelic Chong
- Yang Hai
- Yu Zhang
Abstract
Objective: To compare the rerupture rate after conservative treatment, open repair, and minimally invasive surgery management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2022. Methods: Randomised controlled trials involving different treatments for Achilles tendon rupture were included. The primary outcome was rerupture. Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects was used to assess pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals. We evaluated the heterogeneity and publication bias. Results: Thirteen trials with 1465 patients were included. In direct comparison, there was no difference between open repair and minimally invasive surgery for rerupture rate (RR, 0.72, 95% CI 0.10–4.4; I2 = 0%; Table 2). Compared to the conservative treatment, the RR was 0.27 (95% CI 0.10–0.62, I2 = 0%) for open repair and 0.14 (95% CI 0.01–0.88, I2 = 0%) for minimally invasive surgery. The network meta-analysis had obtained the similar results as the direct comparison. Conclusion: Both open repair and minimally invasive surgery were associated with a significant reduction in rerupture rate compared with conservative management, but no difference in rerupture rate was found comparing open repair and minimally invasive surgery.
Suggested Citation
Haidong Deng & Xin Cheng & Yi Yang & Fang Fang & Jialing He & Yixin Tian & Tiangui Li & Yangchun Xiao & Yuning Feng & Peng Wang & Weelic Chong & Yang Hai & Yu Zhang, 2023.
"Rerupture outcome of conservative versus open repair versus minimally invasive repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: A systematic review and meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(5), pages 1-12, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0285046
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285046
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0285046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.