[Minimally invasive sinus tarsal approach versus conventional L-shaped lateral approach in treating calcaneal fractures: a Meta-analysis].

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of minimally invasive sinus tarsal approach versus conventional L-shaped lateral approach in treating calcaneal fractures.

METHODS

The studies concerning about randomized controlled trial and non-randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sinus tarsal approach versus conventional L-shaped lateral approach in treating calcaneal fractures from the time of creating database to March, 2017 were searched from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMbase, ISI Web of Knowledge databases, VIP, CNKI, CBM and Wan Fang. The literatures which screened by randomized controlled trial and non- randomized controlled trial were extracted and performed quality assessment by two people. Meta analysis were performed by RevMan 5.3 software and GRADE system were used to evaluate quality.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trial and 4 non-randomized controlled trial were included, totally 493 patients. Meta-analysis results showed compared with conventional L-shaped lateral approach, minimally invasive sinus tarsal approach had shorter operative time [MD=-5.41, 95%CI(-6.71, -4.12), <0.000 01], lower incidence of postoperative complications[OR=0.10, 95%CI(0.05, 0.21), <0.000 01], and higher AOFAS score [MD=-3.09, 95%CI(-1.72, 4.46), <0.000 01] at the final follow-up. Böhler angle in conventional L-shaped lateral approach was better than that of minimally invasive sinus tarsal approach [MD=-0.80, 95%CI(-1.45, -0.14), <0.05]. While there were no significant differences in postoperative Gissanes angle [MD=0.35, 95%CI(-0.77, 1.47), >0.05] and Maryland score[MD=2.12, 95%CI(-0.71, 4.95), >0.05] between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive sinus tarsal approach and conventional L-shaped lateral approach has similar clinical effect for the treatment of calcaneal fractures. However, minimally invasive sinus tarsal approach has advantages of shorter operation time, lower incidence of complication and better safety. For the limited quantity of the original studies, operative approach should be chosen according to the patient.