Surgical treatment for achilles tendinopathy – a systematic review

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

		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
Gastrocnemius recession vs.	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

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

ISSN: 1471-2474