Skip Navigation



British Medical Bulletin Advance Access published online on September 3, 2009

British Medical Bulletin, doi:10.1093/bmb/ldp030
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
92/1/153    most recent
ldp030v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gougoulias, N.
Right arrow Articles by Maffulli, N.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gougoulias, N.
Right arrow Articles by Maffulli, N.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Management of calcaneal fractures: systematic review of randomized trials

Nikolaos Gougoulias{dagger}, Anil Khanna{dagger}, Donald J. McBride{dagger} and Nicola Maffulli{dagger},{ddagger},*

{dagger} Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, UK
{ddagger} Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End Hospital, 275 Bancroft Road, London E1 4DG, UK

* Correspondence to: Nicola Maffulli, Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End Hospital, 275 Bancroft Road, London E1 4D, UK. E-mail: n.maffulli{at}qmul.ac.uk

Introduction: The optimal management of calcaneal fractures is controversial, as correlation between anatomical restoration and outcome has not been proven, and complications after surgery are frequent.

Sources of data: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google scholar, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group Trials Register were searched using the keywords ‘calcaneal’ and ‘fractures’, without time limits or restriction to language. Randomized and quasi-randomized trials were included. Two separate comparisons were identified in the trials: operative versus non-operative management (five studies), and impulse compression versus no impulse compression (one study). Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality, with a 12-item scale used by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Areas of agreement: Results showed no difference in residual pain, but favoured surgical management on ability to return to the same work and to wear the same shoes as before the fracture. Surgery reduced the need for subsequent subtalar fusion. workers’ compensation affected outcome.

Areas of controversy: It is unclear whether general health outcome measures, injury specific scores and radiographic parameters improve after operative management, and whether the benefits of surgery outweigh the risks.

Growing points: The existing trials are of relatively poor quality.

Areas timely for developing research: There is still a need for a carefully designed large-scale trial comparing surgery and non-operative management. Other forms of fixation (external fixation or minimally invasive internal fixation) should be compared with ‘conventional’ surgery. Trials investigating joint reconstruction versus primary subtalar fusion for highly comminuted fractures, and impulse compression versus placebo could be of value.

Keywords: calcaneal • fractures • fixation

Accepted for publication July 19, 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.