↓ Skip to main content

Sinus tarsi approach versus extensile lateral approach for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture: a meta-analysis of current evidence base

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sinus tarsi approach versus extensile lateral approach for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture: a meta-analysis of current evidence base
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13018-017-0545-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hui Yao, Tangzhao Liang, Yichun Xu, Gang Hou, Lulu Lv, Junbin Zhang

Abstract

The extensile lateral approach (ELA) has been widely performed for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (DIACFs), and wound complications remain a significant problem. As a minimal incision technique, the sinus tarsi approach (STA) was designed to overcome this disadvantage. There were already many reports about this approach but the conclusions were not completely consistent. Based on the current evidence, we performed this meta-analysis to compare the STA with ELA in the management of DIACF and expected to draw a certain and meaningful conclusion. All potentially relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) were searched in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrial.gov. The desirable outcomes including wound complications, excellent and good rate, secondary surgery rate and Böhler's angle were extracted. RCT studies were assessed using the Risk of Bias Tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, and cohort studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The data of RCTs and cohorts were pooled respectively using the fixed-effect model or random-effect model. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data, and relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated for dichotomous data. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the Q test and I (2) . Sensitivity analysis was developed to assess the reliability of pooled results. Seven studies including two RCTs and five CSs were eligible for the meta-analysis. No matter RCTs or CSs, the pooled data all showed that STA group had a lower incidence of wound complications than that in the ELA group and no significant difference was found in excellent and good rate and the recovery of Böhler's angle between the two groups. The CSs also showed that the STA group had a lower incidence of secondary surgeries than that in the ELA group. Through a STA, we not only can reduce the problems in wound healing but also achieve nearly the same adequate restoration of DIACF along with the similar functional outcomes compared with through an ELA.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Psychology 1 2%
Unknown 18 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,008,865
of 9,195,512 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#352
of 506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,847
of 254,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#15
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,195,512 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 506 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 254,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.