Intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Do locking plates keep the reduction better than conventional plates?

Abstract

IntroductionSince the development of locking plates, calcaneal fractures have been considered ideal for this type of fixation, due to the need to maintain the height of the subastragaline joint after depression fractures in a location where bone quality tends to be poor. However, there are no comparative studies that support the theoretical superiority of these plates over conventional plates. The aim of this study was to compare the results of intraarticular calcaneal fractures treated using locking plates versus conventional plates in terms of radiological reduction, complications and number of reinterventions. Material and methodsWe designed a comparative study of calcaneal fractures operated in our centre using the “L” approach. Two groups were established: Group B, comprising 15 patients operated between 2010 and 2015 with calcaneal locking plates and Group A, comprising a stratified random sample of 23 patients taken from a historical cohort of 90 patients operated in our centre between 1997 and 2007 using conventional calcaneal plates. Demographic data were recorded (age, sex, diabetes mellitus, smoking) and data relating to the fracture (type of fracture according to Sander’s classification system, complications, presurgical delay). To evaluate loss of reduction, varus angulation of the calcaneus (measured from the axial view), Böhler’s angle and Gissane’s angle were assessed radiographically. These angles were measured preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at the end of follow-up. Finally, we recorded complications and the number of reinterventions. ResultsThere were no differences in terms of age, sex or fracture type between the two groups. There was greater loss of varus angulation in group A, .6° versus .41°, and there was greater reduction in Böhler’s angle in group A, 3.79° versus 2.6°, while Gissane’s angle decreased more in Group B, 4.13° versus 2.52°. There were no significant differences in the proportion of complications and reinterventions between the two groups. ConclusionIn our study we observed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of radiological reduction, complications or number of reinterventions. However, we did observe a greater loss of reduction of Böhler’s angle in the patients who were operated using conventional plates.