Purpose： To compare the efficacy of percutaneous poking reduction and fixation with open reduction and fixation in the treatment of displaced calcaneal fractures. Methods： Reports of studies using case-controlled tr...Purpose： To compare the efficacy of percutaneous poking reduction and fixation with open reduction and fixation in the treatment of displaced calcaneal fractures. Methods： Reports of studies using case-controlled trials （CCT） to compare the percutaneous poking reduction and fixation with the open reduction and fixation in the management of calcaneal fractures were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, PubMed Database, CNKI, Chinese Biomedical Database, Wanfang Data （fromJanuary of 2005 to August of 2015）. Methodological quality of the trials was critically assessed, and relevant data were extracted. Statistical software Revman 5.0 was used for data-analysis. Results： Fifteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of the efficacy of percutaneous poking reduction and fixation with open reduction and fixation in the treatment of calcaneal fractures revealed statistical significance in the incidence of complications after operation [RR -- 0.32, 95,~ Cl （0.20, 0.5）, p 〈 0.05]. However, there were neither statistical significance in the degrees of recovery for calcaneal Bohler angle [WMD = -1.65, 95% CI （ 3.43, 0.14）, p 〉 0.05] and calcaneal Gissane angle [WMD - -3.21, 95%, Cl （-6.75, 0.33）, p 〉 0.05], nor statistical significance in the rate of good foot function after operation [RR = 0.95, 95Z Cl （0.90, 1.00）, p 〉 0.05]. Conclusion： For the treatment of calcaneal fractures, percutaneous poking reduction and fixation is superior to open reduction and fixation in terms of the incidence of postoperative complications. But both techniques can obtain satisfactory clinical function.展开更多
基金This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China （No. 81572098）.
文摘Purpose： To compare the efficacy of percutaneous poking reduction and fixation with open reduction and fixation in the treatment of displaced calcaneal fractures. Methods： Reports of studies using case-controlled trials （CCT） to compare the percutaneous poking reduction and fixation with the open reduction and fixation in the management of calcaneal fractures were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, PubMed Database, CNKI, Chinese Biomedical Database, Wanfang Data （fromJanuary of 2005 to August of 2015）. Methodological quality of the trials was critically assessed, and relevant data were extracted. Statistical software Revman 5.0 was used for data-analysis. Results： Fifteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of the efficacy of percutaneous poking reduction and fixation with open reduction and fixation in the treatment of calcaneal fractures revealed statistical significance in the incidence of complications after operation [RR -- 0.32, 95,~ Cl （0.20, 0.5）, p 〈 0.05]. However, there were neither statistical significance in the degrees of recovery for calcaneal Bohler angle [WMD = -1.65, 95% CI （ 3.43, 0.14）, p 〉 0.05] and calcaneal Gissane angle [WMD - -3.21, 95%, Cl （-6.75, 0.33）, p 〉 0.05], nor statistical significance in the rate of good foot function after operation [RR = 0.95, 95Z Cl （0.90, 1.00）, p 〉 0.05]. Conclusion： For the treatment of calcaneal fractures, percutaneous poking reduction and fixation is superior to open reduction and fixation in terms of the incidence of postoperative complications. But both techniques can obtain satisfactory clinical function.
