Internal fixation of fractures of both bones forearm: Comparison of locked compression and limited contact dynamic compression plate

Abstract

Background:The locking compression plate (LCP) with combination holes is a newer device in fracture fixation. We undertook a study comparing the LCP with limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) in the treatment of diaphyseal fractures of both bones of the forearm.Materials and Methods:This is a prospective comparative study, 36 patients (18 in each group) with fractures of both the forearm bones (72 fractures) were treated with one of the two devices. The average age of the patients was 30.5 years (range 16–60 years) with mean followup of 2.1 years (range 1.5–2.8 years). The patients were assessed for fracture union and function and complications and by Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score for patient related outcome at the latest followup.Results:There was no significant difference in two groups with respect to the range of movements or grip strength. One case had delayed union (LC-DCP group) and another had synostosis (LCP group). Plate removal was done in four cases within the study period with no refracture till the presentation of this report.Conclusion:LC plating is an effective treatment option for fractures of both bones of forearm. The present study could not prove its superiority over LC-DCP.

Stabilisation of diaphyseal fractures of both bones forearm with limited contact dynamic compression or locked compression plate: comparison of clinical outcomes

“…9 More recently, Saika et al too have reported 100% union rates with mean time to union lesser with LCP than LC-DCP. 24 Matching observations were published by Azboy et al using DCP in place of LC-DCP. 25 On the contrary, Stevens et al proclaimed mean consolidation time favoring DCP over LCP.…”

“…This was in sharp contradiction to Saikia and Haribabu et al who recorded it to be more with LCP although insignificantly. 24,31 No significant differences could be brought about between the group with regard to functional aspects in spite of exercising on three different criteria (ROM: elbow and wrist flexion and forearm pronation and supination; Andersons criteria and DASH score). Many precedent studies too have echoed our findings.…”

“…23 In spite of these experimental studies confirming the lead of LCPs over DCPs and all locked plates, clinical trials have failed to reestablish this in forearm fractures. [24][25][26] In our series, we disclosed one incident of nonunion in LC-DCP group with equivalent mean time to union between the groups (p =0.397). 100% union rates have been claimed by Leung et al in their randomized control trial (RCT) comparing LC-DCP with PC-Fix with an average union period of 17 and 18 weeks, respectively for closed fractures.…”

“…Many precedent studies too have echoed our findings. 5,6,[24][25][26][27] Implant removal was taken up in overall 18 patients (10 in LC-DCP group and 8 in LCP group) mostly on patients' request who had hardware prominence or uneasiness. However, it could not be accomplished in two patients with LCP due to cold fusion between the screws and plate.…”

Effectiveness of Locking Versus Dynamic Compression Plates for Diaphyseal Forearm Fractures

“…The authors concluded that the LCP and LC-DCP provided similar results. [11] In 32 patients (45 fractures) with forearm fractures who were treated with LCPs, Leung and Chow [14] reported that union was achieved at an average of 20 weeks. However, they encountered delayed union in 2 (6.3%) cases.…”