[Comparison of clinical effect and postopertaive incisions between No-touch technique and traditional retractor in treating calcaneal fracture].

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical efficacy of No-touch technique and traditional retractor in treating calcaneal fracture.

METHODS

Clinical data of 74 calcaneal fracture patients with closed Sanders typeⅡ to Ⅳ were retrospectively analyzed from July 2019 to June 2021. According to different treatment methods, the patients were divided into No-touch group and conventional group, 37 patinets in each group. In No-touch group, there were 25 males and 12 females, aged from 19 to 70 years old with an average of (42.64±14.16) years old;17 patients were typeⅡ, 14 patinets with type Ⅲ, 6 patients with type Ⅳ according to Sanders fracture classification;three 2.0 mm Kirschner wires were implanted into the talus body, talus neck, and cuboid bone, and the flap was turned upward to expose the operation area. In conventional group, there were 30 males and 7 females, aged from 19 to 67 years old with an average of (41.56±11.38) years old;17 patients with typeⅡ, 12 patients with type Ⅲ, 8 patients with type Ⅳ according to Sanders fracture classification;the operation was completed by exposing the operation area with traditional retractor. Operation time, postoperative incision complications, postoperaive American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle hind foot score at 6 months between two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were followed up, and follow-up time in No-touch group ranged from 6 to 17 months with an average of(9.57±2.72) months, while in conventional group ranged from 6 to 16 months with an averge of(9.14±2.71) months, and no difference in follow-up between two groups (>0.05). Operation time in No-touch group (55.67±7.94) min was shorter than that in conventional group (70.16±9.41) min (<0.05);four patients in No-touch group occurred incision complications, while 8 patients in normal group, and had statistically difference(<0.05). Daily activities and support, maximum walking distance (block), ground walking, limited degree of flexion, extension and valgus, foot alignment and total score of AOFAS scores in No-touch group was significantly higher than that of conventional group (<0.05). There were no significant difference in pain degree, abnormal gait and ankle hind foot stability between two groups(>0.05). According to AOFAS score, 19 patients got excellent result, 16 good and 2 poor in No-touch group;while 9 excellent, 24 good, and 4 poor in conventional group, and no difference between two groups (>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with traditional retractor in treating calcaneal fracture, No-touch technology could significantly shorten operation time, reduce incidence of postopertive complications, while two methods could improve excellent and good rate of ankle joint function recovery after operation.