
Foot & Ankle
Mini-invasive reduction & percutaneous fixation vs ORIF for displaced calcaneal fractures
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
Int Orthop. 2014 Dec;38(12):2505-12
45 displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures were randomized to surgery through one of two methods: minimally invasive reduction and percutaneous fixation (MIRPF), or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of wound healing problems, functional outcome, and radiological outcome between the two procedures. Follow-up was performed over 1 year postoperatively. Fewer wound healing problems were noted with MIRPF (0/22) compared to ORIF (7/23). Function was also found to be improved in the MIRPF group compared to the ORIF group at 3, 6, and 12 months, although results were obtained from unequal groups with respect to fracture type distribution, with more cases of less severe injury allocated to MIRPF. Further high quality studies are needed to compare these two treatments.
Unlock the full article
Get unlimited access to OrthoEvidence with a free trial
Start TrialCritical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or continue reading this full article
Register Now

Subscribe to "The Pulse"
Evidence-Based Orthopaedics direct to your inbox.