ArticleSICOT-J2021
Evaluation of patient outcomes after operative treatment of intra-articular calcaneus fractures.
Article in SICOT-J, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Restoration of calcaneal anatomy and physiologic function after fracture: the importance of tuber length.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025Article
- Early Surgery and Screw-Only Osteosyntheses in Minimally Invasive Treatment of Calcaneal Fractures-Risk or Benefit for Our Patients?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Posterior arthroscopic subtalar arthrodesis without bone graft preserves hindfoot height and function.SICOT-J · 2025Article
- Transforming the Management of Articular Fractures in the Foot: A Critical Examination of Current Methods and Future Directions: A Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Analysis of risk factors associated with incision complications in modified "L" approach for calcaneal fracture.American journal of translational research · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous reduction with fixation and open reduction internal fixation are often used to treat intra-articular calcaneus fractures with no consensus on the preferred method. Open techniques have been associated with an increased risk of wound complications, while percutaneous techniques may result in inferior reduction capabilities. These injuries pose a challenge to patients as they often result in poor patient outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed patient outcomes of a single surgeon's experience in treating these injuries at a busy urban Level 1 trauma center.
methodsPatients with intra-articular calcaneus fractures managed operatively over 10 years with a minimum six-month follow-up were included. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on operative technique: closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF) or open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Descriptive analysis of each cohort included postoperative infection, the need for repeat operations, development of post-traumatic subtalar arthritis, and reduction capabilities as assessed by Bohler's angle.
resultsSixty-two patients were included in this study, with 33 patients in the CRPF group and 29 patients in the ORIF group. Infection requiring a return to the operating room occurred in 1 (3%) CRPF and 7 (24%) ORIF patients. Instrumentation was removed in 23 (70%) CRPF and 9 (31%) ORIF patients. Clinical subtalar arthritis developed in 10 (30%) CRPF and 7 (24%) ORIF patients, requiring arthrodesis in 2 (6%) and 5 (17%) patients, respectively. Both techniques had acceptable restoration of Bohler's angle immediately postoperatively and at final follow-up.
conclusionsPercutaneous reduction with fixation and open reduction internal fixation may both be considered for the surgical treatment of intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Indications for each technique may vary between surgeons, and each has its own set of risk factors and complications, however, both have been shown to result in an acceptable reduction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.