Lateral Extensile Approach Versus Minimal Incision Approach for Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Displaced Intra-articular Calcaneal Fractures: A Meta-analysis.

Journal: The Journal Of Foot And Ankle Surgery : Official Publication Of The American College Of Foot And Ankle Surgeons
Published:
Abstract

Treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this large meta-analysis was to report the outcomes of the lateral extensile approach versus the minimal incision approach including complications, anatomic reduction, functional outcomes, and timing and to report results when only randomized control trials were compared. Five electronic databases were searched for articles directly comparing the 2 above approaches. Inclusion criteria included articles published from January 2007 to April 2017, adults (>18 years old) with closed, Sanders type II or III fractures, mean follow-up time of ≥12 months, and ≥1 primary outcome reported. Seventeen randomized control trials and 10 retrospective studies were included. There were 2179 participants with 2274 fractures, and mean follow-up of 22.41 months. Our results revealed no statistically significant difference in Gissane's angle, calcaneal width, calcaneal length, deep infection, or subtalar stiffness. When taking into consideration only randomized control trials, there was no statistically significant difference between groups comparing postoperative Bohler's or Gissane's angle. There was a statistically significant difference in wound complications, superficial infection, sural nerve injury, visual analog scale (VAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, operative time, time to operating room, calcaneal height, and postoperative Bohler's angle (when all studies were considered), all in favor of the minimal incision approach. These results remained statistically significant when only the randomized controlled trials were compared, with the exception of Bohler's angle and VAS and AOFAS scores. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the minimal incision approach is a good alternative to the standard lateral extensile approach.