2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2016.04.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative study on three surgical techniques for intra-articular calcaneal fractures: open reduction with internal fixation using a plate, external fixation and minimally invasive surgery

Abstract: ObjectiveTo evaluate, compare and identify the surgical technique with best results for treating intra-articular calcaneal fractures, taking into account postoperative outcomes, complications and scoring in the Aofas questionnaire.MethodsThis was a retrospective study on 54 patients with fractures of the calcaneus who underwent surgery between 2002 and 2012 by means of the following techniques: (1) open reduction with extended L-shaped lateral incision and fixation with double-H plate of 3.5 mm; (2) open reduc… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…of patients No. of fractures Takasaka 2016 [ 22 ] Retrospective Not specified 20 vs. 27 23 vs. 27 Kumar 2014 [ 23 ] Prospective 30 vs. 31 21 vs. 21 23 vs. 22 Chen 2011 [ 24 ] Prospective 32 vs. 31 40 vs. 38 40 vs. 38 Wang 2015 [ 25 ] Retrospective 41 vs. 39 53 vs. 54 58 vs. 60 DeWall 2010 [ 26 ] Retrospective 41 vs. 40 41 vs. 79 42 vs. 83 Basile 2016 [ 27 ] Prospective 39 vs. 41 20 vs. 18 20 vs. 18 Kline 2013 [ 28 ] Retrospective 42 vs. 46 79 vs. 33 79 vs. 33 Yeo 2015 [ 29 ] Retrospective 42 vs. 46 60 vs. 40 60 vs. 40 Xia 2014 [ 30 ] Prospective 37 vs. 38 49 vs. 59 53 vs. 64 Wu 2012 [ 31 ] Retrospective 41 vs. 39 148 vs. 181 170 vs. 213 Weber 2008 [ 32 ] Retrospective 40 vs. 42 26 vs. 24 26 vs. 24 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…of patients No. of fractures Takasaka 2016 [ 22 ] Retrospective Not specified 20 vs. 27 23 vs. 27 Kumar 2014 [ 23 ] Prospective 30 vs. 31 21 vs. 21 23 vs. 22 Chen 2011 [ 24 ] Prospective 32 vs. 31 40 vs. 38 40 vs. 38 Wang 2015 [ 25 ] Retrospective 41 vs. 39 53 vs. 54 58 vs. 60 DeWall 2010 [ 26 ] Retrospective 41 vs. 40 41 vs. 79 42 vs. 83 Basile 2016 [ 27 ] Prospective 39 vs. 41 20 vs. 18 20 vs. 18 Kline 2013 [ 28 ] Retrospective 42 vs. 46 79 vs. 33 79 vs. 33 Yeo 2015 [ 29 ] Retrospective 42 vs. 46 60 vs. 40 60 vs. 40 Xia 2014 [ 30 ] Prospective 37 vs. 38 49 vs. 59 53 vs. 64 Wu 2012 [ 31 ] Retrospective 41 vs. 39 148 vs. 181 170 vs. 213 Weber 2008 [ 32 ] Retrospective 40 vs. 42 26 vs. 24 26 vs. 24 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, Takasaka et al compared three ORIF methods using plaque, external fixation, and MIS using nuts and wire arriving at the conclusion that there are no differences between these three methods. 37 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite modern surgical techniques and the considerable number of studies in literature, calcaneum fracture and its best treatment method remains an enigma for all orthopaedic surgeons [18,[7][8][9] . Axial loading is by far the most common mechanism of injury causing vast majority of intra-articular fracture calcaneum.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ORIF is associated with potential complications of flap necrosis, neuro-vascular injury, post-traumatic arthritis and potential non-union leading to considerable morbidity in some patients [15][16][17] . In order to circumvent the potential complications of ORIF newer minimally invasive approaches have come up with different implants but all are under close scrutiny and a matter of ongoing debate and research with each having marginal advantages and disadvantages over one another [18][19][20] . The extensile lateral approach has been considered the gold standard approach for treatment of displaced intra-articular fractures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%