{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Open Reduction and Internal Fixation with Plate and Screw versus Triplanar External Fixation in the Surgical Treatment of Calcaneal Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
{Author}: Pavone V;Sapienza M;Carnazza M;Vaccalluzzo MS;Leotta G;Sergi F;Mobilia G;Di Via D;Testa G;
{Journal}: J Clin Med
{Volume}: 13
{Issue}: 13
{Year}: 2024 Jun 27
{Factor}: 4.964
{DOI}: 10.3390/jcm13133770
{Abstract}: Background: The treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (DIACF) is debated. This study compares open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIOS). Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on 70 patients with DIACF treated between January 2018 and September 2022, divided into ORIF (n = 50) and MIOS (n = 20) groups. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Maryland Foot Score (MFS) and the Creighton-Nebraska Health Foundation Assessment Scale (CNHFAS). Radiographic outcomes, complication rates, and reintervention rates were evaluated. A chi-square analysis examined the correlation between Sanders classification and treatment choice. Results: The chi-square analysis indicated no significant correlation between the complexity of the fracture and the type of treatment chosen (χ2 = 0.175, p = 0.916). Additionally, the Cochran-Armitage test for trend showed no significant trend in the choice of treatment based on fracture complexity (statistic = 0.048, p = 0.826). A Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a longer time to reintervention for MIOS (p = 0.029). Complication rates were similar, with specific complications varying between groups. Quality-of-life outcomes were comparable. Conclusions: ORIF is preferable for high-demand patients due to better anatomical outcomes, while MIOS suits high-risk patients by reducing reinterventions and complications. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.