Retrospective analysis of locked versus non-locked plating of distal fibula fractures.

Autor: Sop A; Charleston Area Medical Center, Orthopedic Trauma Group, 3200 MacCorkle Avenue SE, Charleston, WV 25304, United States., Kali M; Charleston Area Medical Center, Orthopedic Trauma Group, 3200 MacCorkle Avenue SE, Charleston, WV 25304, United States; Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research, Charleston Area Medical Center, United States. Electronic address: MAHER.KALI@CAMC.ORG., Spindel JF; Gill Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States., Brown SM; Madigan Army Medical Center. Lewis-McChord, WA, United States., Samanta D; Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research, Charleston Area Medical Center, United States.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Injury [Injury] 2023 Feb; Vol. 54 (2), pp. 768-771. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Dec 14.
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.11.049
Abstrakt: Introduction: Unstable distal fibular fractures have traditionally been treated with open reduction internal fixation using a 1/3 tubular non-locked plate (compression plating). Locked plating is a newer technique that has become more popular despite the lack of clinical data supporting improved outcomes. The cost of locked plating is almost four times that of compression plating. We compared rates of reoperation due to implant failure, infection, and symptomatic device between compression and locked plating in open reduction internal fixation of distal fibular fractures METHODS: A retrospective study was performed at a level one trauma center over a ten-year period (2008-2017). Patients who were 18 and older and treated for unstable ankle fractures with locking or non-locking plate were included in this study. Patient charts were reviewed by orthopedic trauma surgeons to identify whether patients were treated with a 1/3 tubular non-locking or pre-contoured locked plate and to determine the cause of reoperation.
Results: In total, 442 patients were identified with 203 in the non-locked 1/3 tubular plate group and 239 in the pre-contoured locked plate group. A total of 38 patients (8.6%) underwent device removal with a higher proportion of patients in the non-locked 1/3 tubular plate cohort (11.3% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.059). Statistically significant differences in reasons for reoperation were found for symptomatic implant (78.3% vs. 46.7%, p = 0.045) and infection (8.7% vs 53.3%., p < 0.01). Of patients who had device removal for symptomatic implant in the compression plating cohort, 13 (72.2%) had lateral positioning and 5 (27.8%) had posterior positioning (p < 0.01) whereas there was no statistical difference in plate positioning in the locked cohort. Of all medical comorbidities identified, only diabetes was associated with a higher rate of infection-related reoperations (83.3% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.01).
Conclusions: Both compression and locked plate techniques demonstrated low reoperation rates. Compression plating with 1/3 tubular plates placed laterally more often resulted in reoperation due to symptomatic implant but had fewer complications of infection. Given that the cost is significantly less, 1/3 tubular plating placed posteriorly may be preferred to decrease the risks of symptomatic implant and infection.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors have any funding or conflicts to report.
(Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: