Abstract

Various studies comparing operative and non-operative intervention for displaced intrarticular calcaneal fractures have reported conflicting findings in the past. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) vis-a-vis conservative management. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing operative and non-operative intervention for displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures were assessed and included in this meta-analysis. Data was extracted independently and methodological quality was further assessed. The inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis were: randomized controlled trials comparing operative with non-operative intervention for displaced intra-articular fractures of calcaneum and reporting atleast one of the main outcomes as failure to resume pre-injury work, residual pain and other complications. Eight randomized controlled trials fulfilled the criteria for this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that patients managed conservatively failed to resume pre-injury work (RR 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.98, P = 0.04). However operative intervention was associated with more complications (RR 1.74, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.37, P = 0.0005). There was no statistically significant difference in residual pain (RR 0.73 95% CI = 0.40-1.36, P = 0.33) and reoperation (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.48-1.16, P = 0.20) between the two groups. Surgery can benefit patients with calcaneal fracture and increases their likelihood to resume pre-injury work. However, the complication rates are significantly higher in the operative group. Since the included trials have used different scores to measure patient outcomes, hence little effective data could be pooled for the meta-analysis from these scores or scales.