ArticleInternational journal of burns and trauma2021
Extensile approach versus minimally invasive technique in management of calcaneus fractures.
Article in International journal of burns and trauma, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Treatment of Calcaneal Fractures by Minimally Invasive Technique Using a 2-Point Distractor Versus ORIF and Conservative Therapy-A Retrospective Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of different intraoperative reduction monitoring methods in a cadaveric intraarticular calcaneal fracture model: 3D scan vs arthroscopy vs nanoscopy.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
- Percutaneous Cannulated Screw Fixation vs. Plating With Minimally Invasive Longitudinal Approach After Closed Reduction for Intra-Articular Tongue-Type Calcaneal Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCalcaneus fracture is one of the important fractures in orthopedic surgery. Here we aimed to investigate and compare the extensile approach and minimally invasive technique in patients with calcaneus fractures.
methodsThis is a randomized clinical trial that was performed in 2019 in Kashani and Alzahra hospitals in Isfahan, Iran. The study population consisted of 30 patients with intraarticular calcaneus fractures. Thirty patients were divided into two groups. In the first group, surgery was performed using the minimally invasive technique and in the second group, the extensile approach was performed. Patients were followed for 12 months. Data regarding the duration of surgery, Boehler and Gisan angles, quality of joint reduction, subtalar joint movement, the incidence of soft-tissue complications and pain of the patients were measured and compare between two groups.
resultsA total number of 30 patients entered the study and were divided into two groups each containing 15 patients. The duration of operation in the extensile approach group was significantly higher than the minimally invasive group (P = 0.03). The severity of pain and mean Boehler angle were significantly higher in the minimally invasive group than in the extensile approach group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002 respectively). The quality of reduction was also significantly better in the extensile approach group than minimally invasive (P = 0.01) but the extensile approach group had more soft tissue complications than the minimally invasive group (P = 0.006).
conclusionExtensile approach was associated with lower pain, lower Boehler angle and better quality of reduction compared to minimally invasive technique but also higher operation duration and surgical site complications. We suggest that the extensile approach should be used in patients with calcaneus fractures with attention to possible complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33824782PMC8012877W3151975056What 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.