Clinical comparison of modified sinus tarsi approach and L-shaped approach in open reduction and internal fixation for Sanders typeIII-IV intra-articular calcaneal fractures: Complications, security, effectiveness analysis

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic Science Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1016/j.jos.2025.02.004
Yang Bin , Zhang Xingguo , Li Hua , Wang Decheng
{"title":"Clinical comparison of modified sinus tarsi approach and L-shaped approach in open reduction and internal fixation for Sanders typeIII-IV intra-articular calcaneal fractures: Complications, security, effectiveness analysis","authors":"Yang Bin ,&nbsp;Zhang Xingguo ,&nbsp;Li Hua ,&nbsp;Wang Decheng","doi":"10.1016/j.jos.2025.02.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>L-shaped incision<span><span> is the most widely used approach for treating calcaneal fracture; however, it has been associated with various complications, such as wound infection, skin edge necrosis, postoperative </span>fracture malunion<span><span>, and traumatic arthritis. Accordingly, this surgical approach should be re-examined. This study aimed to investigate the clinical effect and safety of the modified sinus tarsi approach in </span>open reduction and internal fixation for Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures and compare it with the traditional L-shaped approach.</span></span></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective study enrolled 72 patients with unilateral closed Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures treated with a modified sinus tarsi approach (38 patients) and L-shaped approach (34 patients) from May 2018 to June 2020. Postoperative complications and changes in calcaneal Böhler angle, Gissane angle, and Varus angle were observed and compared between the two groups before and 3 days, and 12 months after the operation. At 12 months after the operation, the Maryland foot function score, AOFAS score, and VAS score were used to evaluate the recovery of foot function in both groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The modified tarsal sinus approach group had significantly shorter incision healing time (9.8 ± 1.9 d) and operation time (75.53 ± 21.12 min), as well as fewer wound-healing complications (2.6 %) compared to the L-shaped approach group (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05). There were no significant differences in the Böhler, Gissane, and Varus angles between the two groups after the operation. At 12 months after the operation, no significant differences were observed in Maryland, AOFAS, and VAS scores.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div><span>The modified sinus tarsi and L-shaped approaches had similar clinical effects in the treatment of Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures. However, the treatment of modified sinus tarsi approaches in open reduction and internal fixation for Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures implies small incision, low degree of soft tissue injury, and low wound-healing complications, thus resulting in an effective </span>minimally invasive treatment for Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16939,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science","volume":"30 6","pages":"Pages 1110-1116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0949265825000429","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

L-shaped incision is the most widely used approach for treating calcaneal fracture; however, it has been associated with various complications, such as wound infection, skin edge necrosis, postoperative fracture malunion, and traumatic arthritis. Accordingly, this surgical approach should be re-examined. This study aimed to investigate the clinical effect and safety of the modified sinus tarsi approach in open reduction and internal fixation for Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures and compare it with the traditional L-shaped approach.

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 72 patients with unilateral closed Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures treated with a modified sinus tarsi approach (38 patients) and L-shaped approach (34 patients) from May 2018 to June 2020. Postoperative complications and changes in calcaneal Böhler angle, Gissane angle, and Varus angle were observed and compared between the two groups before and 3 days, and 12 months after the operation. At 12 months after the operation, the Maryland foot function score, AOFAS score, and VAS score were used to evaluate the recovery of foot function in both groups.

Results

The modified tarsal sinus approach group had significantly shorter incision healing time (9.8 ± 1.9 d) and operation time (75.53 ± 21.12 min), as well as fewer wound-healing complications (2.6 %) compared to the L-shaped approach group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the Böhler, Gissane, and Varus angles between the two groups after the operation. At 12 months after the operation, no significant differences were observed in Maryland, AOFAS, and VAS scores.

Conclusion

The modified sinus tarsi and L-shaped approaches had similar clinical effects in the treatment of Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures. However, the treatment of modified sinus tarsi approaches in open reduction and internal fixation for Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures implies small incision, low degree of soft tissue injury, and low wound-healing complications, thus resulting in an effective minimally invasive treatment for Sanders type III-IV calcaneal fractures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改良跗骨窦入路与l型入路切开复位内固定治疗Sanders iii - iv型跟骨关节内骨折的临床比较:并发症、安全性、有效性分析。
背景:l形切口是治疗跟骨骨折最常用的入路;然而,它与各种并发症有关,如伤口感染、皮肤边缘坏死、术后骨折不愈合和创伤性关节炎。因此,应重新检查该手术入路。本研究旨在探讨改良跗骨窦入路在Sanders III-IV型跟骨骨折切开复位内固定中的临床疗效和安全性,并与传统l型入路进行比较。方法:本回顾性研究纳入2018年5月至2020年6月72例单侧闭合性Sanders III-IV型跟骨骨折患者,采用改良跗骨窦入路(38例)和l型入路(34例)。观察两组患者术后并发症及跟骨关节Böhler角、Gissane角、内翻角变化,并比较术前、术后3天及术后12个月的差异。术后12个月,采用Maryland足功能评分、AOFAS评分、VAS评分评价两组足功能恢复情况。结果:改良跗骨窦入路组切口愈合时间(9.8±1.9 d)和手术时间(75.53±21.12 min)明显短于l型入路组,创面愈合并发症发生率(2.6%)明显低于l型入路组(P)。结论:改良跗骨窦入路与l型入路治疗Sanders III-IV型跟骨骨折临床疗效相近。改良跗骨窦入路治疗Sanders III-IV型跟骨骨折切开复位内固定,切口小,软组织损伤程度低,创面愈合并发症少,可有效微创治疗Sanders III-IV型跟骨骨折。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic Science
Journal of Orthopaedic Science 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
290
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic Science is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association. The journal publishes the latest researches and topical debates in all fields of clinical and experimental orthopaedics, including musculoskeletal medicine, sports medicine, locomotive syndrome, trauma, paediatrics, oncology and biomaterials, as well as basic researches.
期刊最新文献
Presence of lesser trochanter fragments is a risk factor for malrotation in subtrochanteric femoral fractures: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study. Factors associated with achieving minimum clinically important differences in EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 levels scores following surgery for adult spinal deformity. The combined effect of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy and exercise in lateral epicondylitis: A randomized controlled trial. Trends in arthroscopic meniscus and anterior cruciate ligament surgery in Japan: Review of a 3-year registry of the Japan Sports Orthopaedic Association. The effect of improving cervical extension function on quality of life in patients with dropped head syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1