ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Calcaneal locking intramedullary nailing versus extensile lateral plating for displaced intra‑articular calcaneal fractures: a propensity‑weighted cohort study focusing on perioperative soft‑tissue burden and early recovery trajectories.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisplaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (DIACFs) are among the most challenging hindfoot injuries and are often associated with persistent disability, reduced quality of life, and treatment-related complications [1, 2]. Although extensile lateral open reduction and plate fixation can restore calcaneal anatomy, it is accompanied by substantial soft-tissue morbidity [3-6]. Locking intramedullary nailing (IMN) is less invasive, yet comparative studies often emphasize overall complication rates and long-term functional scores, with limited quantification of perioperative soft-tissue management burden and early recovery trajectories [9, 10].
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study comparing locking IMN with extensile lateral plating (ORIF) in adults with DIACFs. The primary outcomes were (1) a Soft‑Tissue Burden Index (STBI) incorporating drain utilization, postoperative drainage volume, wound leakage duration, dressing changes, aspiration for hematoma/seroma, and soft‑tissue reintervention; and (2) early recovery trajectories using repeated pain scores (VAS) and patient‑reported outcomes (Foot Function Index, FFI) at prespecified time points (2, 6, and 12 weeks; 6 and 12 months). Confounding was addressed using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) [13-15, 17].
resultsNinety patients were included (IMN n = 28; ORIF n = 62). After IPTW, baseline covariates were balanced. IMN demonstrated a lower STBI than ORIF (weighted mean 1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 3.5 ± 1.4; p < 0.001), driven by reduced drain utilization (3/28 [11%] vs. 59/62 [95%]; p < 0.001) and fewer dressing changes within 14 days (2.2 ± 1.5 vs. 6.4 ± 3.1; p < 0.001). Early recovery favored IMN, with lower VAS at 6 weeks (2.5 ± 1.2 vs. 3.7 ± 1.4; p < 0.001) and 12 weeks (1.7 ± 1.0 vs. 2.4 ± 1.2; p = 0.020), and better FFI at 6 weeks (52.3 ± 14.7 vs. 63.1 ± 15.4; p < 0.001) and 12 weeks (34.4 ± 12.3 vs. 43.2 ± 13.1; p = 0.003). Time to full weight bearing was shorter in IMN (10.7 ± 2.3 vs. 12.9 ± 2.6 weeks; p = 0.004). Twelve‑month functional outcomes were similar (FFI 16.8 ± 8.6 vs. 18.2 ± 9.4; p = 0.520). Wound‑related complications were lower in IMN (1/28 [4%] vs. 12/62 [19%]; p = 0.048).
conclusionsLocking IMN showed lower perioperative soft‑tissue burden and faster early recovery compared with extensile lateral plating, while maintaining similar mid‑term outcomes.
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.