Comparison of 5 Treatment Approaches for Displaced Intra-articular Calcaneal Fractures: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

The choice of the best treatment method for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (DIACFs) remains controversial. Using a network meta-analysis, this study aims to evaluate the radiographic characteristics, clinical effectiveness, and incision complications of nonoperative treatment, open reduction and internal fixation, minimally invasive reduction, and fixation. The studies were abstracted from Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata software. Seventeen RCTs involving 1297 participants with 1354 fractures were included. A total of 5 treatments—extensile lateral approach (ELA), minimally invasive longitudinal approach (MILA), sinus tarsi approach (STA), percutaneous reduction and fixation (PRF), and nonoperative treatment—were analyzed. The treatments were ranked based on Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) probability. In terms of recovery of Böhler's angle, the treatments were ranked as follows: MILA (75.3%), PRF (68.3%), ELA (54.7%), STA (51.6%), and nonoperative (0%). In terms of Böhler's angle after treatment, the treatments were ranked as follows: PRF (65.3%), ELA (64.0%), STA (63.5%), MILA (56.9%), and nonoperative (0.2%). In terms of American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score, the treatments were ranked as follows: PRF (87.0%), MILA (52.9%), STA (46.6%), ELA (40.4%), and nonoperative (23.1%). In terms of excellent and good satisfaction ratings, the treatments were ranked as follows: STA (96.2%), ELA (66.8%), PRF (34.9%), and nonoperative (2%). In terms of incision complications, the treatments were ranked as follows: PRF (84.1%), MILA (80.0%), STA (35.8%), and ELA (0.1%). Given the good results of the minimally invasive approach in terms of radiographic characteristics, clinical effectiveness and incision complications, the minimally invasive approach is a good alternative for DIACFs. More randomized controlled trials focused on DIACFs are needed to further examine this conclusion.