ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2020
Cost-utility analysis of extensile lateral approach versus sinus tarsi approach in Sanders type II/III calcaneus fractures.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Are the non-weight bearing guidelines for the after treatment of calcaneal fractures still decisive? A Dutch survey among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
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
Abstract
backgroundExtensile lateral approach had been recognized as the gold standard technique for displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures (DIACFs) while sinus tarsi approach had been increasingly valued by surgeons and comparative clinical outcome was shown in both techniques. Appropriate decisions could be made by the clinicians with the help of cost-utility analysis (CUA) about optimal healthcare for type II/III calcaneus fracture.
methodA single-center, retrospective study was conducted in which basic characteristics, clinical outcomes, and health care costs of 109 patients had been obtained and analyzed. Changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores, validated by EuroQol five-dimensional-three levels (EQ-5D-3L), were used to enumerate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost per QALY.
resultsOne hundred nine patients were enrolled in our study including 62 in the ELA group and 47 in the STA group. There were no significant differences between these two groups in mean total cost, laboratory, and radiographic evaluation expense, surgery, anesthesia, and antibiotic expense. The expense of internal fixation materials ($3289.0 ± 543.9) versus ($2630.6 ± 763.7) and analgesia ($145.8 ± 85.6) versus ($102.9 ± 62.7) in ELA group were significantly higher than in the STA group (P < .001, P = .008, respectively). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores showed significant difference at postoperative 3 and 5 days (P < .001). American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scores and the Bohlers' and Gissane angle showed no significant differences between the two groups before and after the operation. The cost-effectiveness ratios of ELA and STA were $8766.8 ± 2835.2/QALY and $7914.9 ± 1822.0/QALY respectively, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) of ELA over STA was $32110.00/QALY, but both showed no significant difference.
conclusionBoth ELA and STA techniques are effective operative procedures for the patients with calcaneus fracture. Moreover, STA seems to be more reasonable for its merits including less postoperative pain, and less expense of analgesia as well as internal fixation materials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.
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.