Resident PGY-3, Department of Podiatry, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Owner and Podiatrist, Private Practice, Oklahoma City, OK.
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020 Mar-Apr;59(2):356-366. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2019.08.007.
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.
治疗移位型关节内跟骨骨折仍然存在争议。因此,本大规模荟萃分析的目的是报告外侧伸展入路与小切口入路的结果,包括并发症、解剖复位、功能结果以及时间,并报告仅比较随机对照试验时的结果。检索了 5 个电子数据库,以查找直接比较上述两种方法的文章。纳入标准包括 2007 年 1 月至 2017 年 4 月发表的文章、成人(>18 岁)闭合性、桑德斯 II 或 III 型骨折、平均随访时间≥12 个月、至少报告 1 个主要结果。纳入了 17 项随机对照试验和 10 项回顾性研究。共有 2179 名参与者和 2274 例骨折,平均随访 22.41 个月。我们的结果显示,Gissane 角、跟骨宽度、跟骨长度、深部感染或距下关节僵硬无统计学差异。仅考虑随机对照试验时,术后 Bohler 或 Gissane 角两组间无统计学差异。在伤口并发症、浅表感染、腓肠神经损伤、视觉模拟评分(VAS)和美国矫形足踝协会(AOFAS)评分、手术时间、手术时间、跟骨高度和术后 Bohler 角方面存在统计学差异(当所有研究均考虑时),所有这些都倾向于小切口入路。当仅比较随机对照试验时,这些结果仍然具有统计学意义,除了 Bohler 角和 VAS 和 AOFAS 评分。这项荟萃分析的结果表明,小切口入路是标准外侧伸展入路的良好替代方法。