The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes of patients with a displaced calcaneal fracture treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), percutaneous treatment, or nonoperative methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a level I trauma center of patients with a displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture treated from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2011. The patient-reported outcome measures included the Foot Function Index, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale, Short Form-36, the EQ-5D from the EuroQol Group, and a 10-point visual analog scale. Clinical data were collected from 169 patients, and questionnaires were obtained from 78 patients (18 nonoperatively, 27 ORIF, and 33 percutaneously). The late intervention rate was significantly greater in the percutaneous group (n = 18; 30%) than in the ORIF group (n = 6; 12%) or the nonoperative group (n = 8; 13%; p = .030). Significantly more disability was reported in the nonoperative group (median Foot Function Index score, 40 points) than in the ORIF group (median, 16 points; p = .010) or in the percutaneous group (median, 21 points; p = .034). In conclusion, the operatively treated patients (ORIF and percutaneous treatment) reported better functional outcome scores (Foot Function Index and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale) than did the nonoperatively treated patients.

Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip (MoMHR) has enjoyed a resurgence in the last decade, but is now again in question as a routine option for osteoarthritis of the hip. Proponents of hip resurfacing suggest that its survival is superior to that of conventional hip replacement (THR), and that hip resurfacing is less invasive, is easier to revise than THR, and provides superior functional outcomes. Our argument serves to illustrate that none of these proposed advantages have been realised and new and unanticipated serious complications, such as pseudotumors, have been associated with the procedure. As such, we feel that the routine use of MoMHR is not justified.

Level of Evidence: V, Expert Opinion