• A Siebe De Boer, Van Lieshout Esther M M EM Trauma Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Dennis Den Hartog, Bas Weerts, Michael H J Verhofstad, and Tim Schepers.
• Trauma Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
• J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015 May 1; 54 (3): 298-305.

AbstractThe aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes of patients with a displaced calcaneal fracture treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), percutaneous treatment, or nonoperative methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a level I trauma center of patients with a displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture treated from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2011. The patient-reported outcome measures included the Foot Function Index, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale, Short Form-36, the EQ-5D from the EuroQol Group, and a 10-point visual analog scale. Clinical data were collected from 169 patients, and questionnaires were obtained from 78 patients (18 nonoperatively, 27 ORIF, and 33 percutaneously). The late intervention rate was significantly greater in the percutaneous group (n = 18; 30%) than in the ORIF group (n = 6; 12%) or the nonoperative group (n = 8; 13%; p = .030). Significantly more disability was reported in the nonoperative group (median Foot Function Index score, 40 points) than in the ORIF group (median, 16 points; p = .010) or in the percutaneous group (median, 21 points; p = .034). In conclusion, the operatively treated patients (ORIF and percutaneous treatment) reported better functional outcome scores (Foot Function Index and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale) than did the nonoperatively treated patients.Copyright © 2015 American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…