The effect of compression on the rate of fracture healing using a special plate

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

“…5 Through ages, compression has been adjudged as an indispensible tool to achieve rigid internal fixation. [6][7][8] With conventional plating, the friction at plate bone interface lends stability at the expense of periosteal perfusion. 9,10 Past few decades have introduced new implants in an effort towards biological plating which preserve vascularization more competently allowing early mobilization with a capably stable fixation.…”

A randomized controlled study of dynamic compression plate (DCP) versus limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) in treatment of forearm bone fractures in adults (age 18-60 years)

“…The conclusion of our study was that Limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) has a definite advantage over Dynamic compression plating (DCP) with respect to time to union and screw placement in comminuted fractures, and in osteoporotic bone but the complications, duration of surgery and surgical technique virtually remains unchanged. A1 ----A2 1 4 --A3 1 4 --B1 4 16 --B2 ----B3 4 16 6 24 C1 --3 12 C2 --2 8 C3 15 60 14 56 25 100 25 100 [6] 42 18 27 129 [6] 6-48 12 Naiman [18] 8-36 18 [4] 7.4 5-10 [3] 59 31 7 3 Chapman [6] …”

“…The chances for the occurrence of malunion and non-union are greater because of the difficulties in reducing and maintaining the reduction of two parallel bones in the presence of the pronating and supinating muscles, which have angulatory as well as rotatory influences [1] . Open reduction and internal fixation with plating is generally accepted as the best method of treatment for displaced diaphyseal fractures of the forearm in the adults [2] The value of compression in obtaining rigid internal fixation had been noted by various authors [3,4,5] . Compression techniques have a lower incidence of non-union and are found to hasten rehabilitation, with less joint stiffness [6][7][8][9][10][11] .…”

Single versus two Miniplates in the Treatment of Mandibular Parasympheal and Sympheal Fracture; A Study on Fifty Patients

“…In 1958, Bagby and Janes modified a conventional non-compression plate in a very simple but indigenous manner, allowing the application of compression to the fracture by simply tightening the screws. 6 In 1968, Luhr published his works on mandibular bone plates, which used a similar principle. This report was closely followed by the compression plate of Mittelmeier in 1968.…”