الفهرس 
AnatomyOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 117 |  |  |
| | | from | 117 | | |
Abstract
Background: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is becoming more common in Calcaneal fractures of Sanders types II and III. The extensile lateral approach (ELA) appears to be the gold standard.
Aim of the Work: We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intra-articular calcaneus fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation with via Extensile lateral approach (routine treatment) versus those via a sinus tarsi approach (minimally invasive treatment).
Materials and Methods: This systematic review conducted on 7 studies enrolled 734 patients with Sanders type II & III calcaneal fractures comparing he clinical outcomes of intra-articular calcaneus fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) via Extensile lateral approach (routine treatment). The outcome measures considered: Postoperative wound complications, AOFAS score, Time to surgery, Surgical operative time, 24 hours Postoperative VAS score, Bohler’s angle improvement, Gissane’s angle improvement, Calcaneus width reduction, Recovery of calcaneus length, Length of hospital stay.
Results: Regarding postoperative wound complication, minimal invasive procedure significantly reduced the rate of wound complications other than open reduction. Concerning American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society score (AOFAS) score, there was no significant difference between ORIF and minimally invasive (MI) method. With reference to time to surgery, there was a significant difference between ORIF and minimally invasive (MI) method. As regard surgical operative time, MI had a significant reduction in operative time. According 24 hours Post operative VAS score, there was no significant difference between ORIF and minimally invasive (MI) method. Concerning Bohler’s and Gissane’s angles improvement, there was no significant difference between ORIF and minimally invasive (MI) method. With reference to calcaneus width reduction, there was no significant difference between ORIF and minimally invasive (MI) method. According recovery of calcaneus length, the current study showed no significant difference between ORIF and minimally invasive (MI) method. Concerning length of hospital stay, the ORIF consume more hospital stay than minimally invasive methods.
Conclusion: In contrast to ELA, minimal invasive procedure (STA) reduced the rate of wound complication. There was no significant difference between ELA and STA regarding the anatomical and functional outcome. The STA showed significant reduction in time to surgery and operative time.