Operative versus Non operative treatment of displaced intraarticular fracture of calcaneum: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Various studies comparing operative and non-operative intervention for displaced intrarticular calcaneal fractures have reported conflicting findings in the past. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) vis-a-vis conservative management. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing operative and non-operative intervention for displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures were assessed and included in this meta-analysis. Data was extracted independently and methodological quality was further assessed. The inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis were: randomized controlled trials comparing operative with non-operative intervention for displaced intra-articular fractures of calcaneum and reporting atleast one of the main outcomes as failure to resume pre-injury work, residual pain and other complications. Eight randomized controlled trials fulfilled the criteria for this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that patients managed conservatively failed to resume pre-injury work (RR 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.98, P = 0.04). However operative intervention was associated with more complications (RR 1.74, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.37, P = 0.0005). There was no statistically significant difference in residual pain (RR 0.73 95% CI = 0.40-1.36, P = 0.33) and reoperation (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.48-1.16, P = 0.20) between the two groups. Surgery can benefit patients with calcaneal fracture and increases their likelihood to resume pre-injury work. However, the complication rates are significantly higher in the operative group. Since the included trials have used different scores to measure patient outcomes, hence little effective data could.