The role of early weight bearing in the aftertreatment of unilateral displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures: a systematic review and pooled analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures (DIACFs) remain a complex challenge in orthopedic practice due to their complexity and the intricate nature of surgical interventions. While surgical techniques have evolved, postoperative rehabilitation is equally crucial for achieving optimal outcomes. This systematic review evaluates the effects of early weight bearing (EWB) in surgically treated patients with unilateral DIACFs on patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, postoperative pain, differences in Böhler's angle, and complication rates. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to January 2025. Eligible studied included adults (≥ 18 years) who underwent surgery for unilateral DIACFs (Sanders type II-IV), implemented an EWB protocol, reported at least one patient-reported outcome, and were published from 2000 onward. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: From 1007 identified records, 20 studies (n = 1051 DIACFs) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled results showed a mean American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Score of 85.7, Maryland Foot Score of 91.1, and visual analog score of 1.9. The analysis revealed a decline of 0.4 degrees in Böhler's angle from postoperative to last follow-up. The overall complication rate was 13.9%. CONCLUSIONS: EWB protocols appear to be safe and beneficial in the postoperative management of DIACFs, yielding favorable outcomes without increased complication rates. These findings support the reconsideration of current conservative weight-bearing guidelines. Future research should focus on the development of standardized, evidence-based after-treatment guidelines. Level of evidence Level I. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022280985.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".