Frankie Leung1, Shew-Ping Chow. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. klleunga@hkucc.hku.hk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most effective type of plate fixation for diaphyseal forearm fractures has not been defined. We performed a prospective, randomized trial in which the limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) was compared with the Point Contact Fixator (PC-Fix) for the treatment of forearm fractures at one center. METHODS:Ninety-two patients with 125 forearm fractures were recruited for the study and were randomly assigned to fracture fixation with one of the two devices. The average age of the patients was thirty-six years. The average duration of follow-up was twenty-two months. Patients were assessed periodically with use of radiographs and were assessed with regard to pain and function at time of the latest follow-up. RESULTS: Three patients (four fractures) in the PC-Fix group and five patients (five fractures) in the LC-DCP group had a delayed union, but no patient in either group had a nonunion. With the numbers available, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to operative time, time to union, callus formation, pain, or functional outcome. Deep infection occurred in one patient with a closed fracture in the PC-Fix group and in one patient with an open fracture in the LC-DCP group. In addition, one refracture occurred in each group. Both refractures occurred at the site of a screw track. CONCLUSION: Despite the differences in the concept of fracture fixation, these two implants appear to be equally effective for the treatment of diaphyseal forearm fractures.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The most effective type of plate fixation for diaphyseal forearm fractures has not been defined. We performed a prospective, randomized trial in which the limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) was compared with the Point Contact Fixator (PC-Fix) for the treatment of forearm fractures at one center. METHODS: Ninety-two patients with 125 forearm fractures were recruited for the study and were randomly assigned to fracture fixation with one of the two devices. The average age of the patients was thirty-six years. The average duration of follow-up was twenty-two months. Patients were assessed periodically with use of radiographs and were assessed with regard to pain and function at time of the latest follow-up. RESULTS: Three patients (four fractures) in the PC-Fix group and five patients (five fractures) in the LC-DCP group had a delayed union, but no patient in either group had a nonunion. With the numbers available, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to operative time, time to union, callus formation, pain, or functional outcome. Deep infection occurred in one patient with a closed fracture in the PC-Fix group and in one patient with an open fracture in the LC-DCP group. In addition, one refracture occurred in each group. Both refractures occurred at the site of a screw track. CONCLUSION: Despite the differences in the concept of fracture fixation, these two implants appear to be equally effective for the treatment of diaphyseal forearm fractures.
Authors: Kirsten Kortram; Hans Bezstarosti; Willem-Jan Metsemakers; Michael J Raschke; Esther M M Van Lieshout; Michael H J Verhofstad Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Mark B Sommers; Daniel C Fitzpatrick; Steven M Madey; Corey Vande Zanderschulp; Michael Bottlang Journal: J Biomech Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 2.712