Journal List > J Korean Soc Surg Hand > v.20(4) > 1106498

J Korean Soc Surg Hand. 2015 Dec;20(4):168-175. Korean.
Published online December 31, 2015.  https://doi.org/10.12790/jkssh.2015.20.4.168
Copyright © 2015. The Korean Society for Surgery of the Hand
Comparison of Locking versus Dynamic Compression Plates for Treatment of Diaphyseal Forearm Fracture
Yong Chan Lee and Hong Je Kang
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea.

Correspondence to: Hong Je Kang. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, 460 Iksan-daero, Iksan 54538, Korea. TEL: +82-63-859-1360, FAX: +82-63-852-9329, Email: kanghongje@hanmail.net
Received October 25, 2015; Revised November 26, 2015; Accepted November 29, 2015.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Abstract

Purpose

To compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of internal fixation using locking compression plate (LCP) or limited contact-dynamic compression plate (DCP) for patients with diaphyseal forearm fractures.

Methods

Forty-four patients with diaphyseal forearm fractures treated with either LCP (22 patients) or DCP (22 patients) were compared in regards to clinical outcomes, range of motion and Grace and Eversmann criteria at the last follow-up. Union rate and mean time to radiological union were also compared depending on comminution.

Results

Mean range of motion and Grace and Eversmann criteria between two groups did not show significant differences. Bony union was achieved in all patients. Although mean time to union was not different in simple fractures (15.5 weeks in LCP group vs. 13.8 weeks in DCP group), it was different between two groups in mutifragmentary fractures (14.8 weeks in LCP groups vs. 24 weeks in DCP group).

Conclusion

Internal fixation using both LCP and DCP for diaphyseal forearm fractures yield satisfactory clinical and radiologic outcomes. In multifragmentary fractures, LCP can shorten radiologic union time than using DCP.

Keywords: Diaphyseal forearm bone fracture; Locking compression plate; Dynamic compression plate

Figures


Fig. 1
(A) Anatomic forearm midshaft locking plate system (Acumed, Hillsboro, OR, USA). (B) AO 3.5 LC-DCP (Synthes, Eimattstrasse, Oberdorf, Switzerland). AO, Association for Osteosynthesis; LC-DCP, limited contact dynamic compression plate.
Click for larger image


Fig. 2
(A) The preoperative radiograph of a 58-year-old male shows displaced and multifragmentary forearm both bone fracture. (B) At 4 months after operation using locking compression plate (LCP), fracture shows complete union.
Click for larger image


Fig. 3
(A) The preoperative radiograph of a 60-year-old female show displaced and simple forearm both bone fracture after a traffic accident. (B) At 3 months after operation using LC-DCP, fracture shows complete union. LC-DCP, limited contact dynamic compression plate.
Click for larger image

Tables


Table 1
Distribution of patient, sex, age
Click for larger image


Table 2
Distribution of patients according to fractured bone
Click for larger image


Table 3
Individual cases
Click for larger image


Table 4
Evaluation of the forearm function (by Grace and Eversmann)
Click for larger image


Table 5
Clinical results according to Grace and Eversmann
Click for larger image


Table 6
Bone union period according to fracture type and implant type
Click for larger image

References
1. Anderson LD, Sisk D, Tooms RE, Park WI 3rd. Compression-plate fixation in acute diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975;57:287–297.
2. Muller ME. In: Manual of internal fixation: techniques recommended by the AO Group. 2nd ed. Berlin: New York:Springer-Verlag; 1979.
3. Sage FP. Fractures of the shafts and distal ends of the radius and ulna. Instr Course Lect 1971;20:91–115.
4. Sage FP. Medullary fixation of fractures of the forearm: a study of the medullary canal of the radius and a report of fifty fractures of the radius treated with a prebent triangular nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1959;41A:1489–1516.
5. Hughston JC. Fracture of the distal radial shaft; mistakes in management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1957;39:249–264.
6. Jeong SY, Moon U, Vim SJ, Yoon SR, Rah SK, Choi CU. Clinical comparison in intramedullary fixation to plate fixation on treatment of the both forearm bone fractures. J Korean Soc Fract 1995;8:893–901.
7. Park SW, Choi G. The operative treatment of the shaft fractures of the forearm bone. J Korean Soc Fract 1995;8:199–205.
8. Leung F, Chow SP. Locking compression plate in the treatment of forearm fractures: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2006;14:291–294.
9. Kim JW, Kang HJ, No SH. Operative treatment of the displaced midshaft clavicle fracture using precontoured locking compression plate. Clin Should Elbow 2012;15:117–122.
10. Muller ME. In: The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Berlin: New York: Springer-Verlag; 1990.
11. Grace TG, Eversmann WW Jr. Forearm fractures: treatment by rigid fixation with early motion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62:433–438.
12. Anderson LD. Treatment of ununited fractures of the long bones; compression plate fixation and the effect of different types of internal fixation on fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1965;47:191–208.
13. Shen WJ, Liu TJ, Shen YS. Plate fixation of fresh displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Injury 1999;30:497–500.
14. Ring D, Jupiter JB. Ununited fractures of the clavicle with bony defect: treatment with corticocancellous interposition bone graft and plate fixation. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 1999;3:193–196.
15. Perren SM. Minimally invasive internal fixation history, essence and potential of a new approach. Injury 2001;32 Suppl 1:SA1–SA3.
16. Gardner MJ, Brophy RH, Campbell D, et al. The mechanical behavior of locking compression plates compared with dynamic compression plates in a cadaver radius model. J Orthop Trauma 2005;19:597–603.
17. Saikia K, Bhuyan S, Bhattacharya T, Borgohain M, Jitesh P, Ahmed F. Internal fixation of fractures of both bones forearm: comparison of locked compression and limited contact dynamic compression plate. Indian J Orthop 2011;45:417–421.
18. Stevens CT, ten Duis HJ. Plate osteosynthesis of simple forearm fractures: LCP versus DC plates. Acta Orthop Belg 2008;74:180–183.
19. Fulkerson E, Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Liporace F, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ. Fixation of diaphyseal fractures with a segmental defect: a biomechanical comparison of locked and conventional plating techniques. J Trauma 2006;60:830–835.
20. Deluca PA, Lindsey RW, Ruwe PA. Refracture of bones of the forearm after the removal of compression plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:1372–1376.
21. Park KC, Kim HS, Oh JH. Periprosthetic fracture after locked plating in the osteoporotic long bone fracture. J Korean Orthop Assoc 2012;47:222–226.
22. Bottlang M, Doornink J, Byrd GD, Fitzpatrick DC, Madey SM. A nonlocking end screw can decrease fracture risk caused by locked plating in the osteoporotic diaphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:620–627.