Locking compression plate distal ulna hook plate fixation versus intramedullary screw fixation for displaced avulsion fifth Metatarsal Base fractures: a comparative retrospective cohort study

Abstract Background: Plate fixation is frequently used to treat displaced midshaft clavicular fractures, however the ideal plate choice remains subject to discussion; reconstruction locking compression plates (RLCPs) are cheaper and can be easily contoured, whereas anatomically pre-contoured locking compression plates (ALCPs) are thought to provide better stability and therefore lower rates of mechanical failure.Objective: To compare the incidence of mechanical failures, functional and radiological outcomes in patients with midshaft clavicular fractures treated with ALCPs versus RLCPs. Methods: A propensity score matched retrospective cohort study was conducted across two trauma centers. 106 consecutively recruited patients with displaced midshaft clavicular fractures, who were treated with plate fixation and had a minimum follow-up of 6 months, were matched on gender, age, fracture grading, energy of injury, and fracture location. The resulting groups included 53 ALCP-treated fractures and 53 matched controls treated with RLCPs. Results: During a mean follow-up of 20.5 months, there were no implant deformities in the ALCP group whereas the RLCP group had 6 patients (11.3%, p=0.012) with implant deformities (5 occurrences of plate bending with fracture union, and 1 plate breakage with nonunion). Despite the higher rate of plate deformities in the RLCP group, there were no statistically significant differences in number of patients recovering full shoulder range of motion (ALCP 90.6%, RLCP 88.7%, p=0.751), incidence of rest pain (ALCP 13.2%, RLCP 9.4%, p=0.542), or implant removals (ALCP 49.1%, RLCP 56.6%, p=0.439). Conclusion: ALCPs may be superior to RLCPs in terms of implant stability but appear to produce similar clinical results.

Download Full-text

Does Proximal Row Carpectomy Improve Union in Wrist Arthrodesis? A Retrospective Cohort Study

Journal of Wrist Surgery ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1740400 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

John J. Bartoletta ◽

Dana Rioux-Forker ◽

Raahil S. Patel ◽

Katharine M. Hinchcliff ◽

Alexander Y. Shin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cohort Study ◽

Retrospective Cohort Study ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

Plate Fixation ◽

Proximal Row Carpectomy ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Wrist Arthrodesis ◽

Hardware Failure ◽

Therapeutic Study

Abstract Background Some surgeons advocate for concomitant proximal row carpectomy (PRC) with total wrist arthrodesis (TWA), though there are limited data to support or oppose this view. Questions/Purposes Does concomitant PRC improve rates of union, revision, hardware loosening, hardware failure, and hardware removal in TWA? Patients and Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TWA with and without concomitant PRC between January 2008 and December 2018 was undertaken. Patients were included if they underwent TWA using a dorsal spanning plate. Patients were excluded if they underwent partial wrist arthrodesis, revision TWA, or TWA with nondorsal spanning plate fixation. Results A total of 183 wrists in 180 patients were included in the study, 96 (52.5%) in the TWA only and 87 (47.5%) in the TWA + PRC groups. Median clinical and radiographic follow-up was 18.0 months (3.0–133.0 months) in the TWA + PRC group and 18.5 months (2.0–126.0 months) in the TWA only group (p = 0.907). No difference in nonunion (TWA + PRC: 13/87 [14.9%], TWA only: 18/96 [18.8%], odds ratio: 0.76, p = 0.494), revision (TWA + PRC: 5/87 [5.75%], TWA only: 8/96 [8.33%], hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73, p = 0.586), loosening (TWA + PRC: 4/87 [4.60%], TWA only: 6/96 [6.25%], HR: 0.74, p = 0.646), failure (TWA + PRC: 5/87 [5.75%], TWA only: 4/96 [4.17%], HR: 1.55, p = 0.530), and removal (TWA + PRC: 12/87 [13.8%], TWA only: 16/96 [16.7%], HR: 0.84, p = 0.634) were identified. Conclusion Concomitant PRC might not improve rates of union or diminish complications in patient undergoing TWA. The role of PRC and the rationale for its use in TWA need to be individualized and discussed with patients prior to surgery. Level of Evidence This is a Level IV, therapeutic study.

Download Full-text