Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Percutaneous fixation cuts complications in Sanders II-III calcaneal fractures versus sinus tarsi approachLess invasive surgery may lower risks for heel bone fractures

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
PR roughly halves complication risk versus STA in Sanders II-III calcaneal fractures, with comparable function and radiology.

This meta-analysis pooled data from 837 patients with acute traumatic displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (Sanders type II and III) to compare closed percutaneous reduction (PR) with the mini-open sinus tarsi approach (STA).

The overall complication rate was 53% lower with PR than with STA (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.83, p=0.009), with wound complications captured within that pooled endpoint. AOFAS scores marginally favored PR, though the mean difference of 0.82 points is of doubtful clinical relevance.

Radiological parameters were broadly comparable between groups, although calcaneal width remained wider after PR. Time to surgery, hospital stay, and intra-operative times were all shorter with PR, but these pooled estimates showed high heterogeneity.

For less complex Sanders II and III fractures, PR appears to be an acceptable fixation strategy with a lower complication burden than STA. The functional benefit should not be overstated, and the operative-efficiency findings warrant cautious interpretation given the heterogeneity. Evidence level is III, and funding and conflicts of interest were not reported.

When a person suffers a severe heel bone fracture, the surgery to fix it must balance two goals: keeping the bone stable and avoiding complications. Doctors often choose between a standard open approach and a percutaneous reduction, which is a less invasive method. This analysis of 837 patients looked at these two methods for specific types of complex heel fractures.

The data shows that the less invasive percutaneous method reduced the risk of complications by 53 percent compared to the standard open approach. While both methods resulted in similar bone alignment and functional scores, the less invasive option led to shorter hospital stays and faster times to surgery.

It is important to note that while the less invasive method is safer in terms of complications, the slight difference in functional scores was very small. Because the data for surgery timing and hospital stays varied significantly across different studies, these specific benefits are less certain. Talk to your doctor to see if this less invasive approach is right for your specific injury.

What this means for you:
A less invasive surgery for heel fractures can cut complication risks by over half while providing similar results.

Common questions

Is the less invasive surgery safer for heel fractures?

Yes, the data suggests it is. The percutaneous reduction method showed a 53% lower risk of complications compared to the standard open approach. This makes it a potentially safer option for patients with specific types of complex heel fractures, as it reduces the likelihood of issues like wound complications.

How does the recovery compare between the two methods?

The recovery outcomes are very similar between the two methods. While the less invasive approach was slightly favored in functional scores, the difference was only 0.82 points, which may not be a large enough change for a patient to notice. Both methods resulted in comparable bone alignment.

Does the less invasive method get patients home faster?

The less invasive method was associated with shorter hospital stays and shorter times to surgery. However, because the data for these specific timing factors varied a lot across different studies, the exact amount of time saved can vary depending on the specific hospital and surgical team.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 837
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedOct 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Superiority of minimally invasive surgical approaches for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (DIACF) remains debated. This review aimed to compare surgical outcomes between two approaches: closed percutaneous reduction (PR) and mini-open sinus tarsi approach (STA). METHODS: A systematic search identified studies comparing PR vs. STA for acute traumatic DIACFs. Complication rates, operative parameters, functional and radiological outcomes were extracted and analysed. RESULTS: 837 patients were included from eight eligible studies, with Sanders type II and III fractures. PR demonstrated a 53% risk reduction in overall complication rate vs. STA (RR 0.47, 95% CI [0.27-0.83], p = 0.009), including wound complications. AOFAS scores marginally favoured PR vs. STA (MD 0.82 points, p = 0.034), with this difference having doubtful clinical relevance. Radiological parameters were comparable, although calcaneal width remained wider with PR. PR was also associated with shorter times to surgery, length of stays and intra-operative times, although with high heterogeneity in the pooled outcome estimates. CONCLUSION: PR demonstrates lower complication rates with comparable functional and radiological outcomes vs. STA in fixation of less complex DIACFs, and may be an acceptable fixation strategy for these fracture patterns over STA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.