Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of the statistical comparisons between the reviewed groups of different operative procedures

From: Surgical treatment for achilles tendinopathy – a systematic review

  SR PS CR
Open procedures vs. Minimally invasive procedures 0.987 0.211 0.053
Open peritendineous debridement vs. Open intratendineous debridement 0.250 0.003 a 0.062
FHL transfer/augmentation 0.477 0.688 0.048 a
Gastrocnemius recession 0.327 0.0001 a 0.557
Percutaneous longitudinal tenotomy 0.083 0.008 a 0.846
Minimally invasive paratenon debridement 0.866 0.028 a 0.188
Open intratendineous debridement vs. FHL transfer/augmentation 0.692 0.006 b 0.913
Gastrocnemius recession 0.882 0.264 0.145
Percutaneous longitudinal tenotomy 0.752 0.756 0.121
Minimally invasive paratenon debridement 0.130 0.507 0.160
FHL transfer/augmentation vs. Gastrocnemius recession 0.620 0.001 a 0.144
Percutaneous longitudinal tenotomy 0.311 0.017 a 0.097
Minimally invasive paratenon debridement 0.266 0.064 0.001 b
Gastrocnemius recession vs. Percutaneous longitudinal tenotomy 0.916 0.145 0.433
Minimally invasive paratenon debridement 0.215 0.095 0.698
Percutaneous longitudinal tenotomy vs. Minimally invasive paratenon debridement 0.036 b 0.814 0.077
  1. Significant findings are presented in bold. The first line relates to Table 1. The rest of the table represents findings from Table 2. aThe significant value favours the technique which is described in the first column. bThe significant value favours the technique which is described in the second column