Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Trauma Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ (2004) Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. J Orthop Trauma 18:488–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 19:597–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 31:149–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 58:453–458

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 60:1319–1326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hertel R, Pisan M, Lambert S, Ballmer FT (1996) Plate osteosynthesis of diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna. Injury 27:545–548

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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) 30:1074

    Google Scholar 

  8. Larson AN, Rizzo M (2007) Locking plate technology and its applications in upper extremity fracture care. Hand Clin 23:269–78, vii

    Google Scholar 

  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:2343–2348

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Leung F, Chow SP (2006) Locking compression plate in the treatment of forearm fractures: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 14:291–294

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mueller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J (1990) The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York

    Google Scholar 

  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) 22:100–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tscherne H, Oestern HJ (1982) A new classification of soft-tissue damage in open and closed fractures (author’s transl). Unfallheilkunde 85:111–115

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp Henle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Henle, P., Ortlieb, K., Kuminack, K. et al. Problems of bridging plate fixation for the treatment of forearm shaft fractures with the locking compression plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131, 85–91 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1119-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-010-1119-y

Keywords

Navigation