Literature DB >> 27218471

LCP Versus LISS in the Treatment of Open and Closed Distal Femur Fractures: Does it Make a Difference?

.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We compared the postoperative complication rates between the less invasive stabilization system (LISS) plating and locking compression plate for open and closed distal femoral fracture fixation for superiority.
DESIGN: Retrospective Review.
SETTING: Multicenter. PARTICIPANTS: Patients identified through a hospital database who were treated for supracondylar femur fractures using LISS or LCP techniques between January 2005 and July 2010. INTERVENTION: Medical history, patient demographics, injury characteristics, presence of polytrauma, and surgical characteristics were collected for each patient. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: χ and logistic regression analysis was performed to compare postoperative infection and nonunion/reoperation regarding both plating techniques.
RESULTS: Of 339 distal femoral fractures, 185 (54.6%) were repaired with a LISS plate and 154 (45.4%) were repaired with a LCP. Multivariate analysis revealed only open fractures to be a risk factor for nonunion (Odds ratio 2.42, P = 0.01) and infection (Odds ratio 3.47, P = 0.02), regardless of device used. No difference was seen between either plate type in infection, plate failure, or nonunion.
CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative infection and nonunion rates are comparable between LISS and LCP for both open and closed distal femoral fracture fixation. As no difference was detected between plates, either may be used to treat distal femur fractures. Nonunion rate was higher than expected based on previous reports. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27218471     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000507

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  7 in total

1.  Distal Femur Locking Plate: The Answer to All Distal Femoral Fractures.

Authors:  Jagandeep Singh Virk; Sudhir Kumar Garg; Parmanand Gupta; Vivek Jangira; Jagdeep Singh; Sudhir Rana
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-10-01

2.  Healing, nonunion, and re-operation after internal fixation of diaphyseal and distal femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Riikka E Koso; Cristina Terhoeve; R Grant Steen; Robert Zura
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Children with open tibial fractures show significantly lower infection rates than adults: clinical comparative study.

Authors:  Hui Chen; Shunyou Chen; Yi Shi; Yunan Lu; Bin Yu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Medial Open-wedge Osteotomy with Double-plate Fixation for Varus Malunion of the Distal Femur.

Authors:  Qi-Fang He; Han-Xu Wang; Hui Sun; Yu Zhan; Bin-Bin Zhang; Xue-Tao Xie; Cong-Feng Luo
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 2.071

5.  Prevalence of Deep Surgical Site Infection After Repair of Periarticular Knee Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Grayson R Norris; Jake X Checketts; Jared T Scott; Matt Vassar; Brent L Norris; Peter V Giannoudis
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-08-02

6.  Analysis of risk factors for revision in distal femoral fractures treated with lateral locking plate: a retrospective study in Chinese patients.

Authors:  Guojin Hou; Fang Zhou; Yun Tian; Hongquan Ji; Zhishan Zhang; Yan Guo; Yang Lv; Zhongwei Yang; Yawen Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Failure of Less-Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) plating for periprosthetic distal femur fractures: Three case reports.

Authors:  Zhen-Jiang Tian; Yan-Jie Liu; Bo-Jian Chen; Jun Wang; Cai-Li Niu; En-Hui Feng; Xiu-Jun Mai; Yong-Ming Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.817

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.