Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 131, Issue 1, pp 85–91 | Cite as

Problems of bridging plate fixation for the treatment of forearm shaft fractures with the locking compression plate

  • Philipp Henle
  • Kevin Ortlieb
  • Kerstin Kuminack
  • Christof A. Mueller
  • Norbert P. Suedkamp
Trauma Surgery

Abstract

Introduction

Treatment of diaphyseal forearm fractures by open reduction and internal plate fixation is a well-accepted strategy. In a variety of fracture localizations, the use of bridging plate fixation with locking compression plates (LCP) has been shown to improve biomechanical and biological characteristics. Only very limited clinical data are available on bridging plate fixation using LCPs for the treatment of diaphyseal forearm fractures. The aims of this study were to assess both clinical outcomes of LCP fracture treatments, and the implant-specific advantages and disadvantages.

Method

The study consisted of 53 patients. All relevant data were extracted from the medical reports and radiographs. Of the 53 patients, 39 completed the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire and 35 patients were available for clinical examination. The mean time of follow-up was 23.3 months.

Results

Thirty-nine fractures of the radius and 45 fractures of the ulna were treated with 3.5 mm LCPs. Due to a fracture non-union, four patients underwent a second operation. In 13 patients, hardware had already been removed at the time of follow-up. Complete documentation of the removal operation was available for ten patients; in seven of these, procedures difficulties occurred. Mean ranges of motion were 138°, 141° and 162° for elbow flexion–extension, wrist flexion–extension and pronation–supination, respectively. The mean DASH score was calculated at 14.9.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our data show that clinical and functional outcomes of LCP plating of diaphyseal forearm fractures are comparable to the use of conventional implants. However, implant-specific problems during hardware removal must be considered.

Keywords

Forearm Radius Ulna Fracture Bridging plate fixation Locking compression plate LCP Fixateur interne 

Notes

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding this paper. No funding was received for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ (2004) Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. J Orthop Trauma 18:488–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gardner MJ, Brophy RH, Campbell D, Mahajan A, Wright TM, Helfet DL et al (2005) The mechanical behavior of locking compression plates compared with dynamic compression plates in a cadaver radius model. J Orthop Trauma 19:597–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Germann G, Wind G, Harth A (1999) The DASH (Disability of Arm–Shoulder–Hand) Questionnaire—a new instrument for evaluating upper extremity treatment outcome. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 31:149–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gustilo RB, Anderson JT (1976) Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58:453–458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haug RH, Street CC, Goltz M (2002) Does plate adaptation affect stability? A biomechanical comparison of locking and non-locking plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:1319–1326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hertel R, Pisan M, Lambert S, Ballmer FT (1996) Plate osteosynthesis of diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna. Injury 27:545–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jester A, Harth A, Germann G (2005) Measuring levels of upper-extremity disability in employed adults using the DASH Questionnaire. J Hand Surg (Am) 30:1074Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larson AN, Rizzo M (2007) Locking plate technology and its applications in upper extremity fracture care. Hand Clin 23:269–78, viiGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leung F, Chow SP (2003) A prospective, randomized trial comparing the limited contact dynamic compression plate with the point contact fixator for forearm fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:2343–2348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leung F, Chow SP (2006) Locking compression plate in the treatment of forearm fractures: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 14:291–294Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mueller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J (1990) The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stoffel K, Booth G, Rohrl SM, Kuster M (2007) A comparison of conventional versus locking plates in intraarticular calcaneus fractures: a biomechanical study in human cadavers. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tscherne H, Oestern HJ (1982) A new classification of soft-tissue damage in open and closed fractures (author’s transl). Unfallheilkunde 85:111–115PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Henle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kevin Ortlieb
    • 1
  • Kerstin Kuminack
    • 1
  • Christof A. Mueller
    • 1
    • 3
  • Norbert P. Suedkamp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryInselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Orthpaedics and TraumatologyStaedtisches Klinikum KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations