| Literature DB >> 35690670 |
Mohamed Abdel-Wahed1, Ahmed Abdel-Zaher Khater2, Mahmoud Ahmed El-Desouky3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two different locking plate designs are now being used for volar plating of the distal radius fractures based on the freedom of screw direction; the fixed-angle, and the variable-angle (polyaxial) plates. We investigated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of both designs.Entities:
Keywords: Distal radius fractures; Fixed angle; Polyaxial; Variable angle; Volar locking plate
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35690670 PMCID: PMC9372011 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05469-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Orthop ISSN: 0341-2695 Impact factor: 3.479
Fig. 1Locking screw direction variation in variable-angle locking plate
Fig. 2Flow chart of included cases
Demographic features and methodology of included patients
| Fixed-angle plate | Variable-angle plate | P value | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | Count | % | |||
| Sex | Female | 13 | 22.8% | 11 | 28.2% | 0.549 | 24 | 25% |
| Male | 44 | 77.2% | 28 | 71.8% | 72 | 75% | ||
| Mode of trauma | Direct trauma | 9 | 15.8% | 9 | 23.1% | 0.315 | 18 | 18.7% |
| FFH | 7 | 12.3% | 5 | 12.8% | 12 | 12.5% | ||
| FOOSH | 31 | 54.4% | 14 | 35.9% | 45 | 46.9% | ||
| MVA and RTA | 10 | 17.5% | 11 | 28.2% | 21 | 21.9% | ||
| Affected side | Dominant | 45 | 78.9% | 25 | 64.1% | 0.312 | 70 | 72.9% |
| Non-dominant | 4 | 7.0% | 5 | 12.8% | 9 | 9.4% | ||
| Bilateral | 8 | 14.0% | 9 | 23.1% | 17 | 17.7% | ||
| Approach | Modified Henry | 49 | 75.4% | 45 | 93.8% | 0.010 | 94 | 83.2% |
| Extended carpal tunnel | 16 | 24.6% | 3 | 6.2% | 19 | 16.8% | ||
| Pronator quadratus | Stripping | 50 | 76.9% | 34 | 70.8% | 0.464 | 84 | 74.3% |
| Preservation | 15 | 23.1% | 14 | 29.2% | 29 | 25.7% | ||
| Supplementary K-wires | Used | 18 | 27.7% | 3 | 6.3% | 0.004 | 21 | 18.6% |
| Not used | 47 | 72.3% | 45 | 93.7% | 92 | 81.4% | ||
| Ulnar styloid fixation | Needed | 9 | 13.8% | 6 | 12.5% | 0.835 | 15 | 13.3% |
| Not needed | 56 | 86.2% | 42 | 87.5% | 98 | 86.7% | ||
** The first 3 items are calculated for the total number of patients = 96
The others are calculated for the total number of fractures = 113
Fig. 3Fixed-angle and variable-angle locking plates used in the included cases
Fig. 4Radial height and volar tilt measured in a case fixed with a fixed-angle volar locking plate
Fig. 5Radial height and volar tilt measured in a case fixed with a variable-angle volar locking plate
Clinical and radiographic results of cases
| Fixed-angle plate | Variable-angle plate | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
| Range of motion | Wrist flexion | 42.55 | 11.42 | 45.96 | 9.43 | 0.095 | 44.00 | 10.71 |
| Wrist extension | 39.85 | 7.24 | 55.60 | 10.62 | < 0.001 | 46.54 | 11.77 | |
| Radial deviation | 12.38 | 1.94 | 15.29 | 2.41 | < 0.001 | 13.62 | 2.59 | |
| Ulnar deviation | 25.46 | 5.47 | 35.90 | 4.00 | < 0.001 | 29.89 | 7.12 | |
| Functional outcome | Grip strength (Kg) | 16.28 | 4.03 | 20.58 | 4.50 | < 0.001 | 18.11 | 4.73 |
| VAS | 2.25 | 1.71 | 1.73 | 1.30 | 0.082 | 2.03 | 1.56 | |
| Mayo | 70.45 | 11.85 | 80.31 | 5.99 | < 0.001 | 74.64 | 10.92 | |
| Q DASH | 9.46 | 6.63 | 2.76 | 2.46 | < 0.001 | 6.61 | 6.23 | |
| Radiographic parameters | Radial height | 6.34 | 2.71 | 8.75 | 1.77 | < 0.001 | 7.36 | 2.64 |
| Volar tilt | 6.92 | 3.05 | 10.02 | 1.67 | < 0.001 | 8.24 | 2.97 | |
Comparison of clinical and radiographic outcome in special groups
| Cases without associated Ulnar styloid fracture | Cases younger than 50 years | Comparison between age groups | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed-angle plate | Variable-angle plate | Fixed-angle plate | Variable-angle plate | < 50 years | ≥ 50 years | |||||
| Range of motion | Wrist flexion | 42.73 | 45.52 | 0.167 | 43.22 | 46.14 | 0.208 | 44.61 | 41.84 | 0.255 |
| Wrist extension | 39.55 | 54.19 | < 0.001 | 40.28 | 55.43 | < 0.001 | 47.51 | 43.12 | 0.100 | |
| Radial deviation | 12.37 | 15.07 | < 0.001 | 12.70 | 15.21 | < 0.001 | 13.90 | 12.64 | 0.031 | |
| Ulnar deviation | 25.64 | 36.26 | < 0.001 | 25.91 | 35.83 | < 0.001 | 30.65 | 27.24 | 0.034 | |
| Functional outcome | Grip strength (Kg) | 16.13 | 20.64 | < 0.001 | 16.26 | 20.62 | < 0.001 | 18.34 | 17.28 | 0.324 |
| VAS | 2.20 | 1.69 | 0.100 | 2.04 | 1.74 | 0.336 | 1.90 | 2.48 | 0.100 | |
| Mayo | 70.07 | 80.00 | < 0.001 | 72.87 | 80.33 | < 0.001 | 76.43 | 68.32 | 0.001 | |
| Q DASH | 9.50 | 2.67 | < 0.001 | 8.37 | 2.68 | < 0.001 | 5.66 | 9.98 | 0.020 | |
| Radiographic parameters | Radial height | 6.25 | 8.76 | < 0.001 | 6.78 | 8.90 | < 0.001 | 7.80 | 5.84 | 0.001 |
| Volar tilt | 6.89 | 9.98 | < 0.001 | 7.46 | 9.93 | < 0.001 | 8.64 | 6.84 | 0.025 | |
Comparison with the results of other studies
| Khatri et al. [ | Al-Mouazzen et al. [ | Marlow et al. [ | Seung Cha et al. [ | Nishiwaki M. et al. [ | Our study | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study type | Retrospective case series | Retrospective comparative | Retrospective comparative | Retrospective comparative | Retrospective comparative | Prospective comparative | Retrospective comparative |
| No. of included cases | 23 (VAP) | 78 FAP = 42 VAP = 36 | 189 FAP = 60 VAP = 129 | 107 FAP = 42 VAP = 65 | 41 FAP = 20 VAP = 21 | 109 FAP = 54 VAP = 55 | 113 FAP = 65 VAP = 48 |
| Included fracture types | AO 23-A3 = 4 AO 23-C2 = 9 AO 23-C3 = 10 | AO 23- A, B & C | AO 23- A, B & C | AO 23-A = 27 AO 23-B = 8 AO 23-C = 72 | AO 23-A = 12 AO 23-B = 2 AO 23-C = 27 | AO 23-B3 = 1 AO 23-C1 = 5 AO 23-C2 = 36 AO 23-C3 = 67 | AO 23-C |
| Mean age | 32.82 years (19–62) | 50.5 years (16–79) | 14–92 years | 56.1 years in FAP group (18–87) 57.7 years in VAP group (17–92) | 61.5 years in FAP group 57.6 years in VAP group | 58 years in FAP group 59 years in VAP group | 41.28 years (22–60) 44.7 years in FAP group 36.3 years in VAP group |
| Follow-up period | 11.04 ± 2.47 months (6–15) | Minimum 12 months | 32–65 months | 32.5 months (FAP) 17.2 months (VAP) | 8.46 months (FAP) 8.12 months (VAP) | Minimum 12 months | 14 months (9–28) |
| ROM | Flexion = 71.91° Extension = 76.95o Supination = 81.86° Pronation = 94.52o | (% Compared to opposite side) Flexion = 82.4% vs 75.6% Extension = 85.8% vs 83.6% Supination = 94.8% vs 86.7% Pronation = 97.9% vs 95.5% RD = 88.3% vs 82.6% UD = 95.7% vs 76.7% | Flexion – extension = 51.25 vs 63.50 o Supination – pronation = 125.5 vs 135.5 o | (% Compared to opposite side) Flexion = 88% vs 85% Extension = 94% vs 94% Supination = 98% vs 98% Pronation = 99% vs 98% RD = 90% vs 94% UD = 92% vs 90% | Flexion = 42.55 vs 45.96o Extension = 39.85 vs 55.60o RD = 12.38 vs 15.29o UD = 25.46 vs 35.90o | ||
| Grip power | 94.52% of the opposite side | 58.4 kg (FAP) 53.3 kg (VAP) | (% Compared to opposite side) FAP = 91% VAP = 88% | FAP = 16.28 kg VAP = 20.58 kg | |||
| Functional scores | Excellent (65.22%) Good (34.78%) None of the patients had fair or poor results | VAS FAP = 8.24 VAP = 8.43 Mayo score FAP = 79.44 VAP = 71.83 (VAVLP) Q-DASH score FAP = 21.39 VAP = 20.14 | Pain score FAP = 0.57 VAP = 0.63 DASH score FAP = 7.30 VAP = 6.65 | FAP = 5 VAP = 6 FAP = 4 VAP = 6 | FAP = 2.25 VAP = 1.73 FAP = 70.45 VAP = 80.31 FAP = 9.46 VAP = 2.76 | ||
| Radiological parameters | Radial height = 11.84 ± 2.04 mm Radial inclination = 22.89 ± 2.64o Volar tilt = 5.21 ± 5.72o Ulnar variance =—0.29 ± 0.58 mm | Mean percentage of the unsupported subchondral bone significantly lower in the VAP than FAP group (12% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) | Radial height = 8.9 vs 7.3 mm Radial inclination = 22.9 vs 19.5o Volar tilt = 9.1 vs 6.1o | Radial height = 11.8 vs 12.3 mm Radial inclination = 22.9 vs 23.2o Volar tilt = 5.6 vs 6.6o | Radial height = 11.5 vs 10.8 mm Radial inclination = 23 vs 22o Volar tilt = 8 vs 5o UV = 0.8 vs 0.8 mm | Radial length = 6.34 vs 8.75 Volar tilt = 6.92 vs 10.02o | |
| Complications | Hypertrophic scar (1) Superficial infection (2) Screw misplacement (1) Carpal tunnel syndrome (1) | 7/60 (12% had hardware-related complications) 0/129 (0% had hardware-related complications) | Nonunion (1) Malunion (1) Restricted ROM (2) Extensor tendonitis (1) Carpal tunnel syndrome (1) CRPS (2) Restricted ROM (2) | Carpal tunnel syndrome (1) Symptomatic hardware (2) Reduction loss (1) Symptomatic hardware (3) | Carpal tunnel syndrome (4) Wrist pain (2) Trigger finger (2) DRUJ arthritis (1) Pin site infection (1) Wrist pain (4) Carpal tunnel syndrome (3) Trigger finger (3) Intra-articular screws (4) Screw loosening (2) Volar prominence of the plate (2) Deep infection (1) Basilar thumb arthritis (1) Dermatitis (1) | Carpal tunnel syndrome (4) Delayed wound healing (2) Superficial infection (3) Screw misplacement (1) Dorsally-prominent screws (3) CRPS (6) Ruptured flexor tendon (2) Carpal tunnel syndrome (3) Ulnar tunnel syndrome (1) Delayed wound healing (1) Superficial infection (2) Screw misplacement (1) Dorsally-prominent screws (2) CRPS (2) |
Fig. 6A case with frayed FPL tendon due to repeated friction with a plate which was placed distal to the watershed line