ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2021
Open reduction internal fixation versus minimally invasive percutaneous fixation for calcaneus fractures: Mid-term outcomes and social consequences.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [RETRACTED ARTICLE] Open reduction internal fixation versus minimally invasive percutaneous fixation for calcaneus fractures: Mid-term outcomes and social consequences.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2021-11-30Error in Data · Falsification/Fabrication of Data · Falsification/Fabrication of Image · Misconduct by Author · Unreliable Data ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the mid-term clinical, functional, radiological, and socioeconomic outcomes of calcaneus fractures treated with open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) versus minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF). PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 48 patients (34 males, 14 females; mean age: 44.05 years; range, 19 to 64 years) who underwent either ORIF or MIPF for calcaneus fractures between January 2010 and January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups as the ORIF group (n=36) and MIPF group (n=12). The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, Maryland Foot Score (MFS), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores were assessed for the clinical assessment. The mean duration of operation, mean length of hospitalization, pedobarographic gait analysis, the incidence of contralateral knee pain, increased shoe size, and change of profession due to significant heel pain were also evaluated. The Böhler's angle, Gissane angle, and calcaneal varus were measured for radiological assessment.
resultsThere was a significant difference in the mean operation time (p=0.001) and length of hospitalization (p=0.001) between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the pre- and postoperative third-year Böhler's and Gissane angles (p=0.05, p=0.07, p=0.09, respectively). There were no significant differences between the postoperative first-, second-, and third-year AOFAS, MFS, and SF-36 scores (p=0.57, p=0.55 p=0.85, p=0.64, p=0.21, p=0.51, p=0.20, p=0.15, p=0.22, respectively). Thirteen patients in the ORIF group and five patients in the MIPF group changed their job due to significant heel pain. The increased shoe size was correlated with the residual calcaneal varus (p=0.001).
conclusionBoth methods have pros and cons in the treatment of calcaneal fractures. Although MIPF is more advantageous in terms of operation duration and length of hospitalization, more favorable radiological results can be obtained with ORIF. Calcaneal varus should be corrected to prevent the increased shoe size and contralateral knee pain.
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.