SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2021
Sinus tarsi approach versus the extended lateral approach for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extensible lateral approach versus sinus tarsi approach for sanders type II and III calcaneal fractures osteosynthesis: a randomized controlled trial of 186 fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Trial
- Sinus Tarsi Versus Extensile Lateral Approach for Sanders Type II-IV Calcaneal Fractures: A Comparative Analysis of Functional Outcomes, Return to Work, and Cosmetic Parameters.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Imaging and clinical efficacy analysis of minimally invasive reduction and crossbar external fixation in the treatment of Sanders Ⅱ and Ⅲ calcaneal fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of sinus tarsi approach versus extensile lateral approach in the management of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures: A single-center study.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2023Article
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
backgroundThe goal of this study was to review eligible randomized controlled trials to determine the efficacy of the sinus tarsi approach (STA) versus the extended lateral approach (ELA) for the treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (DIACF).
methodsUsing appropriate keywords, we identified relevant studies using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, VANFUN, and VIP. Key pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed, and all articles published through June 2020 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we assessed odds ratios (ORs), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) to assess and synthesize the outcomes.
resultsWe included 15 RCTs, with a total of 847 patients in the STA group and 959 in the ELA group. The results found that after STA and ELA, no significant difference in changes of Böhler's angle (WMD: 0.746, 95% CI: - 0.316-1.809), Gissane angle (WMD: - 0.710, 95% CI: - 2.157-0.737), calcaneal heights (WMD: 0.378, 95% CI: - 1.973-2.728), calcaneal widths (SMD: - 0.431, 95% CI: - 1.604- 0.742), calcaneal lengths (WMD: 0.691, 95% CI: - 0.749-2.131). Besides, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the STA group and the ELA group (RR: 0.592, 95% CI: 0.336-1.045).
conclusionThere was no difference in clinical efficacy between STA and ELA in treating DIACF. Besides, there is still a need of large-sample, high-quality, long-term randomized controlled trials to confirm the conclusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I-High-Quality Prospective Randomized Study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32728979What 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.