Tag Archive for: Classification

Fractures of the Calcaneus- An Illustrated Review

Vol 9 | Issue 1 | January-June 2023 | page: 05-17 | Balvinder Rana, Anand Pillai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/ti.2023.v09.i01.032

Authors: Balvinder Rana [1], Anand Pillai [2]

[1] Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

[2] Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Foot & Ankle Division, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Balvinder Rana,

Speciality Doctor, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Email: anklefootsurgery@gmail.com


Calcaneal fractures are rare injuries accounting for less than 2% of all fractures. There is considerable published literature on calcaneal fractures, but the optimum management has still not been defined clearly because of different fracture patterns, patient characteristics affecting outcome, soft tissue complications associated with surgical treatment and complex anatomy of the calcaneus making accurate surgical reconstruction difficult. New techniques such as minimally invasive surgery (MIS) have shown promise. In this illustrated pictorial review, we summarise the surgical anatomy, pathophysiology, treatment strategies including tips and tricks on surgical management and discuss the current literature for this complex injury.

Keywords: Calcaneus, fracture, calcaneal anatomy, calcaneal fracture management, outcome of calcaneal fracture, classification


1. Mitchell MJ, McKinley JC, Robinson CM. The epidemiology of calcaneal fractures. Foot 2009;19:197–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2009.05.001.

2. Leite CBG, Macedo RS, Saito GH, Sakaki MH, Kojima KE, Fernandes TD. Epidemiological study on calcaneus fractures in a tertiary hospital. Rev Bras Ortop (English Ed 2018;53:472–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2018.05.014.

3. Keener BJ, Sizensky JA. The anatomy of the calcaneus and surrounding structures. Foot Ankle Clin 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcl.2005.04.003.

4. Luikx T, Elthokapy M, Gregory L, et al. Calcaneus, Reference article, Radiopaedia.org https://doi.org/10.53347/rID-319.

5. Cahill DR. The anatomy and function of the contents of the human tarsal sinus and canal. Anat Rec 1965;153:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.1091530102.

6. Sanders R. Displaced intra-articular fractures of the calcaneus. J Bone Jt Surg – Ser A 2000;82:225–50. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200002000-00009.

7. Essex‐Lopresti P. The mechanism, reduction technique, and results in fractures of the OS calcis. Br J Surg 1952;39:395–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.18003915704.

8. Lee SM, Huh SW, Chung JW, Kim DW, Kim YJ, Rhee SK. Avulsion fracture of the calcaneal tuberosity: classification and its characteristics. Clin Orthop Surg. 2012 Jun;4(2):134-8. doi: 10.4055/cios.2012.4.2.134. Epub 2012 May 17. PMID: 22662299; PMCID: PMC3360186.

9. Sanders R, Fortin P, DiPasquale T, Walling A. Operative treatment in 120 displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures: Results using a prognostic computed tomography scan classification. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 1993. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199305000-00012.

10. Cotton FJ, Wilson LT. Fractures of the Os Calcis | NEJM n.d. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM190810291591801

11. Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicentre trial. Buckley R, Tough S, McCormack R, Pate G, Leighton R, Petrie D, Galpin R.JBJS Am. 2002 Oct;84-A(10):1733-44.

12. Tufescu T V, Buckley R. Age, gender, work capability, and worker’s compensation in patients with displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2001;15:275–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200105000-00007.

13. Paul M, Peter R, Hoffmeyer P. Fractures of the calcaneum. A review of 70 patients. J Bone Jt Surg – Ser B 2004;86:1142–5. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86B8.15219

14. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicentre trial. Agren PH, Wretenberg P, Sayed-Noor AS. JBJS Am. 2013 Aug 7;95(15):1351-7

15. Griffin D, Parsons N, Shaw E, Kulikov Y, Hutchinson C, Thorogood M, et al. Operative versus non-operative treatment for closed, displaced, intra-articular fractures of the calcaneus: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2014;349:g4483–g4483. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4483

16. Luo X, Li Q, He S, He S. Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Displaced Intra-Articular Calcaneal Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Foot Ankle Surg 2016;55:821–8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2016.01.035.

17. Chen L, Zhang G, Hong J, Lu X, Yuan W. Comparison of Percutaneous Screw Fixation and Calcium Sulfate Cement Grafting Versus Open Treatment of Displaced Intra-Articular Calcaneal Fractures. Foot & Ankle International. 2011;32(10):979-985. doi:10.3113/FAI.2011.0979

18. Stulík, Jiri & Stulik, Jan & Rysavy, Martin & Wozniak, A. (2007). Minimally-invasive treatment of intra-articular fractures of the calcaneum. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume. 88. 1634-41. 10.1302/0301-620X.88B12.17379

19. Magnan B, Bortolazzi R, Marangon A, Marino M, Dall’Oca C, Bartolozzi P. External fixation for displaced intra-articular fractures of the calcaneum. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Nov;88(11) 1474-1479. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.88b11.17759. PMID: 17075093.

20. Rammelt S, Amlang M, Barthel S, Gavlik JM, Zwipp H. Percutaneous treatment of less severe intraarticular calcaneal fractures. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., vol. 468, 2010, p. 983–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0964-x.

21. Stulik J, Stehlik J, Rysavy M, Wozniak A. Minimally-invasive treatment of intra-articular fractures of the calcaneum. J Bone Jt Surg – Ser B 2006;88:1634–41. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B12.17379

22. Nosewicz TL, Dingemans SA, Backes M, Luitse JSK, Goslings JC, Schepers T. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sinus tarsi and extended lateral approach in the operative treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019 Oct;25(5):580-588. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2018.08.006. Epub 2018 Aug 28. PMID: 30321924.

23. Majeed H, Barrie J, Munro W, McBride D. Minimally invasive reduction and percutaneous fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures: A systematic review of the literature. EFORT Open Rev. 2018 Jul 11;3(7):418-425. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170043. PMID: 30233817; PMCID: PMC6129959.

24. Heier KA, Infante AF, Walling AK, Sanders RW. Open Fractures of the Calcaneus: Soft-Tissue Injury Determines Outcome. J Bone Jt Surg – Ser A 2003. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200312000-00002.

25, Fractures of the Calcaneus 2nd edition, Mandeep S Dhillon, Jaypee publishers, Chapter : Extensile Lateral approach chapter by Richard Buckley and Balvinder Rana

26. Carr JB. Early wound complications of operative treatment of calcaneus fractures: Analysis of 190 fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1999;13:372. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199906000-00009.

27. Schuberth JM, Cobb MD, Talarico RH. Minimally Invasive Arthroscopic-Assisted Reduction with Percutaneous Fixation in the Management of Intra-Articular Calcaneal Fractures: A Review of 24 Cases. J Foot Ankle Surg 2009;48:315–22. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2009.01.002.

28. Hoppenfeld S, DeBoer P, Buckley R. Surgical Exposures in Orthopaedics; The Anatomic Approach. Ch. 12, The ankle and foot. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2009

29. Borrelli J Jr, Lashgari C. Vascularity of the lateral calcaneal flap: a cadaveric injection study. J Orthop Trauma. 1999 Feb; 13(2):73-7.

30. Sirisreetreerux N et al. Location of the vertical limb of Extensile Lateral Calcaneal approach and risk of injury of the calcaneal branch of peroneal artery. Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Feb: 40(2); 224-230.

31. John Y. Kwon, MD et. al. Proximity of the Lateral Calcaneal Artery With a Modified Extensile Lateral Approach Compared to Standard Extensile Approach. Foot & Ankle Int.2016; 38 (3):318-323.

32. Pitts CC, Almaguer A, Wilson JT, Quade JH, Johnson MD. Radiographic and Postoperative Outcomes of Plate Versus Screw Constructs in Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Calcaneus Fractures via the Sinus Tarsi. Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Aug;40(8):929-935. doi: 10.1177/1071100719848063. Epub 2019 May 14. PMID: 31088171.

How to Cite this article: Rana B, Pillai A | Fractures of the Calcaneus- An Illustrated Review | January-June 2023; 9(1): 05-17 | https://doi.org/10.13107/ti.2023.v09.i01.32


(Abstract Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

New Comprehensive Classification Systems for Peri-trochanteric Femur Fractures

Vol 3 | Issue 2 | Sep – Dec 2017 | page: 31-34 | Aditya K. Agrawal

Author: Aditya K. Agrawal [1].

[1]Dept of Orthopaedics, Dhiraj Hospital, SBKS MIRC, SumandeepVidyapeeth, Waghodia, Vadodara, Gujarat, 391760 India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Aditya K. Agrawal
Dept of Orthopaedics, Dhiraj Hospital,
SBKS MIRC, SumandeepVidyapeeth, Waghodia,
Vadodara, Gujarat, 391760 India.
Email: adityagrawal83@gmail.com


Purpose: A classification is considered as good classification if it describes the particularregion of bone, type of fracture, personality of fracture in either planes and helps in selectionof implant and most importantly easy to understand by an orthopedic surgeon. Classification becomes more complicated when there is double region involvement with comminution,or distal fracture is in shaft leading to segmental fracture.
Materials and Methods: There are numerous classification systems available in the presentliterature for peri-trochanteric femur fractures. These include Evan’s, Tronzo, and Boyd andGriffin, OTA classifications for peri-trochanteric region, Seinsheimer’s and Fieldingclassifications for sub-trochanteric region. AO classification which is widely acceptedcritically defines peri-trochanteric, head and neck region of fracture femur.
Results: Drawbacks of existing classifications are that they are based on fractureconfiguration in sagittal plane only except Seinsheimer’s classification which is based oncoronal plane fracture morphology. Furthermore, double regions/ multiple regions arenot properly defined in these classification systems. If the proper classification system is not followed, it will lead to the selection of wrong implants which thereby leads to complications.
Discussion: Advantages of our new classification system are that it is easy to understand; allregions of peri-trochanteric femur are covered, and in the selection of proper implant.Hence, intra-operative complications can be avoided with proper pre-operative planning.
Conclusion: Thus, we hope that our new comprehensive classification of peri-trochantericfemur may help to solve the mysteries surrounding the understanding, classifying, and treating the fractures of peri-trochanteric femur.
Keywords: Classification, comprehensive, femur, fracture, peri-trochanteric.


1. Marks R. Hip fracture epidemiological trends, outcomes, and risk factors, 1970-2009. Int J Gen Med 2010;3:1-17.
2. Chang KP, Center JR, NguyenTV, Eisman JA. Incidence of hip and other osteoporotic fractures in elderly men andwomen: Dubbo osteoporosis epidemiology study. J Bone Miner Res 2004;19:532-6.
3. Saudan M, Lubbeke A, Sadowskil C, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P,.“Per-trochanteric fractures: Is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail: A randomized prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail,”. JOrthopTrauma, 2002; 16,386-93.
4. Pajarinen J,Lindahl J, Michelsson O, Savolainen V, Hirvensalo E. Pertrochanteric femoralfractures treated with a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail. A randomised study comparing post-operative rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:76-81.
5. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin OrthopRelat Res 1998;348:87-94.
6. DavisTR, Sher JL, Horsman A, Simpson M, Porter BB, Checketts RG. Intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Mechanical failure after internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:26-31.
7. Adams C.I, Robinson C. M, Court-Brown C.M, and Mcqueen M.M. “Prospective randomized controlled trail of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur,.” JOrthopTrauma, 2001; 15, 394-400.
8. Gadegone WM, Salphale YS. Proximal femoral nail-an analysis of 100 cases of proximal femoral fractures with an average follow up of 1 year. IntOrthop 2007;31:403-8.
9. Ballal MS, Emms N,Thomas G. Proximal femoral nail failures in extracapsular fractures of the hip. JOrthopSurg (Hong Kong) 2008;16:146-9.
10. Flores LA, Harrington IJ, Heller M.The stability of intertrochanteric fractures treated with a sliding screw-plate. J BoneJoint Surg Br 1990;72:37-40.
11. Bridle S.H, Patel A.D, Bircher M,. (1991) “Fixation of intertrochantericfractures of the femur: A randomized prospective comparison of the gamma nail anddynamic hip screw,”.J Bone Joint Surg, 1991; 73,330-4.
12. Halder SC.The Gamma nail for peritrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74:340-4.
13. Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, van der HeijdenFH, den Hoed PT, Kerver AJ, et al. Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures.Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail. J BoneJoint Surg Br 2004;86:86-94.
14. Morihara T, Arai Y,Tokugawa S, Fujita S, Chatani K, Kubo T. Proximal femoral nail for treatment oftrochanteric femoral fractures. J OrthopSurg (Hong Kong) 2007;15:273-7.

How to Cite this article:  Agrawal A. K. New Comprehensive Classification Systems for Peri-trochanteric Femur Fractures. Trauma International Sep-Dec 2017;3(2):31-34.

(Abstract)      (Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)