RETRACTION: Open reduction internal fixation versus minimally invasive percutaneous fixation for calcaneus fractures: Mid-term outcomes and social consequences
Fahri Emre1
, Ceyhun Çağlar2, Özgür Kaya3
1Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Ankara Gülhane Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
2Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
3Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Lokman Hekim Etlik Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
Keywords: Calcaneal varus, calcaneus fracture, minimally invasive cannulated fixation, plate fixation
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the mid-term clinical, functional, radiological, and socioeconomic outcomes of calcaneus fractures treated with open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) versus minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF).
Patients and methods: A total of 48 patients (34 males, 14 females; mean age: 44.05 years; range, 19 to 64 years) who underwent either ORIF or MIPF for calcaneus fractures between January 2010 and January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups as the ORIF group (n=36) and MIPF group (n=12). The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, Maryland Foot Score (MFS), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores were assessed for the clinical assessment. The mean duration of operation, mean length of hospitalization, pedobarographic gait analysis, the incidence of contralateral knee pain, increased shoe size, and change of profession due to significant heel pain were also evaluated. The Böhler’s angle, Gissane angle, and calcaneal varus were measured for radiological assessment.
Results: There was a significant difference in the mean operation time (p=0.001) and length of hospitalization (p=0.001) between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the pre- and postoperative third-year Böhler’s and Gissane angles (p=0.05, p=0.07, p=0.09, respectively). There were no significant differences between the postoperative first-, second-, and third-year AOFAS, MFS, and SF-36 scores (p=0.57, p=0.55 p=0.85, p=0.64, p=0.21, p=0.51, p=0.20, p=0.15, p=0.22, respectively). Thirteen patients in the ORIF group and five patients in the MIPF group changed their job due to significant heel pain. The increased shoe size was correlated with the residual calcaneal varus (p=0.001).
Conclusion: Both methods have pros and cons in the treatment of calcaneal fractures. Although MIPF is more advantageous in terms of operation duration and length of hospitalization, more favorable radiological results can be obtained with ORIF. Calcaneal varus should be corrected to prevent the increased shoe size and contralateral knee pain.
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.