ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2026
Displacement Following Minimally Invasive vs Open Lateralizing Calcaneal Osteotomy: A Direct Comparison in a Cadaveric Model.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive (MIS) calcaneal osteotomy is increasingly used to decrease soft tissue morbidity, but whether MIS lateral displacement calcaneal osteotomy (LDCO) can achieve similar translation to the open calcaneal osteotomy technique remains unclear. Methods: In a paired cadaveric study, 16 feet from 8 donors were block-randomized so that each pair received 1 open LDCO and 1 MIS LDCO performed by a fellowship-trained foot and ankle surgeon. Lateral translation of the tuberosity was measured directly via a medial approach using a metric ruler by 2 independent observers; Wilcoxon signed-rank test (α = 0.05) compared the 2 techniques. We operationally defined ≥5 mm as a clinically meaningful threshold. Results: Median lateralization was 5.0 mm (range 3.0-8.0) for MIS and 7.5 mm (range 4.0-9.5) for open. The Hodges-Lehmann median difference was 2.41 mm (95% CI: 1.25-4.00 mm), with no statistically significant difference detectable with the numbers available between techniques (Z = -1.47, Conclusion: Both open and MIS LDCO were associated with similar lateral translation of the calcaneal tuberosity, with no significant difference detectable with the numbers available, though MIS was less consistent in reaching ≥5 mm of lateralization. Either approach may be used for mild-to-moderate hindfoot varus, with technique selection guided by soft tissue and infection risk considerations. Clinical Relevance: For mild to moderate hindfoot varus correction, MIS LDCO provides deformity correction comparable to the open approach while potentially reducing soft tissue morbidity. Surgical approach selection should consider patient-specific risk factors.
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.