Christian Bastias1, Hugo Henríquez1, Manuel Pellegrini2, Stefan Rammelt3, Natalio Cuchacovich1, Leonardo Lagos4, Giovanni Carcuro1. 1. Foot and Ankle Unit, Instituto Traumatológico Teodoro Gebauer, Santiago, Chile. 2. Foot and Ankle Unit, Instituto Traumatológico Teodoro Gebauer, Santiago, Chile; Foot and Ankle Unit, Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 3. Department of Trauma & Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. 4. Foot and Ankle Unit, Instituto Traumatológico Teodoro Gebauer, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: leo_lagos@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Locking and non-locking plates has been used for distal tibia fracture osteosynthesis. Sufficient evidence to favor one implant over the other is lacking in the current literature. Our aim is to compare them in terms of fracture healing, alignment, functional outcome, complications. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients operated on using a percutaneous plate were retrospectively reviewed. They were divided into two groups: in group 1 (28 patients) a 4.5mm narrow conventional dynamic compression plate (DCP) was used. In group 2 (40 patients) a titanium locked compression plate (LCP) was used. RESULTS: Mean time to union was 16.2 and 15.4 weeks for group 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.618). 11 patients (39.3%) in group 1 and 4 patients (10%) in group 2 showed malalignment (p=0.016). AOFAS scores at follow up were 89 and 88 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Implant removal was necessary in 9 cases (32.1%) and 4 cases (10%) in group 1 and group 2, respectively (p=0.042). Three patients (10.7%) in group 1 and three patients (7.5%) in group 2 had an infection. CONCLUSIONS: Both plating systems have similar results in terms of time to union, infection, and AOFAS scores. The LCP seems superior with respect to alignment and the need for implant removal.
BACKGROUND: Locking and non-locking plates has been used for distal tibia fracture osteosynthesis. Sufficient evidence to favor one implant over the other is lacking in the current literature. Our aim is to compare them in terms of fracture healing, alignment, functional outcome, complications. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients operated on using a percutaneous plate were retrospectively reviewed. They were divided into two groups: in group 1 (28 patients) a 4.5mm narrow conventional dynamic compression plate (DCP) was used. In group 2 (40 patients) a titanium locked compression plate (LCP) was used. RESULTS: Mean time to union was 16.2 and 15.4 weeks for group 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.618). 11 patients (39.3%) in group 1 and 4 patients (10%) in group 2 showed malalignment (p=0.016). AOFAS scores at follow up were 89 and 88 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Implant removal was necessary in 9 cases (32.1%) and 4 cases (10%) in group 1 and group 2, respectively (p=0.042). Three patients (10.7%) in group 1 and three patients (7.5%) in group 2 had an infection. CONCLUSIONS: Both plating systems have similar results in terms of time to union, infection, and AOFAS scores. The LCP seems superior with respect to alignment and the need for implant removal.
Authors: Krzysztof Piątkowski; Piotr Piekarczyk; Krzysztof Kwiatkowski; Mateusz Przybycień; Bartłomiej Chwedczuk Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Carlo Biz; Andrea Angelini; Marco Zamperetti; Filippo Marzotto; Silvano Pierluigi Sperotto; Diego Carniel; Claudio Iacobellis; Pietro Ruggieri Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 3.411