Open Reduction and Internal Fixation with Plate and Screw Versus Triplanar External Fixation in the Surgical Treatment of Calcaneal Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: The surgical approach to treating calcaneal fractures, specifically Sanders types II, III, and IV, is still a subject of controversy. The decision to opt for open reduction and internal fix-ation (ORIF) or minimally invasive osteosynthesis (MIOS) remains uncertain owing to varying complication rates. This study intends to examine each treatment’s pros and cons in relation to the incidence of complications. Methods: In this retrospective study, we examined 70 patients treated between January 2018 and September 2022: 50 received ORIF, and 20 underwent MIOS. We evaluated functional outcomes with the Maryland Foot Score and the Creighton-Nebraska Health Foundation Assessment Scale (CNHFAS). We also assessed the amount of anatomical restoration using Böhler’s and Gissane’s angles, determined by radiographic checks, and the frequency of postoperative complications. Results: A significant reduction in the risk of reinter-vention was observed in patients with high anesthetic risks, polytraumatized individuals, and those with comorbidities who underwent MIOS. The chi-square test analysis of postoperative complications highlighted no substantial differences between the ORIF and MIOS groups in rela-tion to tendinitis, chronic pain and swelling, algodystrophy, and surgical wound infections (p > 0.20 for all). Conclusion: ORIF is more suitable for patients who have high motor function re-quirements, a long-term activity schedule and can endure potential additional procedures. This preference is because ORIF provides better anatomical restoration and features a lower osteoar-thritis occurrence rate.