locking plate osteosynthesis
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

51
(FIVE YEARS 15)

H-INDEX

15
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 408
Author(s):  
Rony-Orijit Dey Hazra ◽  
Johanna Illner ◽  
Karol Szewczyk ◽  
Mara Warnhoff ◽  
Alexander Ellwein ◽  
...  

Introduction: The optimal treatment strategy for the proximal humeral fracture (PHF) remains controversial. The debate is centered around the correct treatment strategy in the elderly patient population. The present study investigated whether age predicts the functional outcome of locking plate osteosynthesis for this fracture entity. Methods: A consecutive series of patients with surgically treated displaced PHF between 01/2017 and 01/2018 was retrospectively analyzed. Patients were treated by locking plate osteosynthesis. The cohort was divided into two groups: Group 1 (≥65 years) and Group 2 (<65 years). At the follow-up examination, the SSV, CMS, ASES, and Oxford Shoulder Score (OS), as well as a radiological follow-up, was obtained. The quality of fracture reduction is evaluated according to Schnetzke et al. Results: Of the 95 patients, 79 were followed up (83.1%). Group 1 consists of 42 patients (age range: 65–89 years, FU: 25 months) and Group 2 of 37 patients (28–64 years, FU: 24 months). The clinical results showed no significant differences between both groups: SSV 73.4 ± 23.4% (Group 1) vs. 80.5 ± 189% (Group 2). CMS: 79.4 ± 21 vs. 81.9 ± 16, ASES: 77.2 ± 20.4 vs. 77.5 ± 23.1, OS: 39.5 ± 9.1 vs. 40.8 ± 8.2; OS: 39.5 ± 9.1 vs. 40.8 ± 8.2. In the radiological follow-up, fractures healed in all cases. Furthermore, the quality of fracture reduction in both groups is comparable without significant differences. The revision rate was 9.5% in Group 1 vs. 16.2% in Group 2. Discussion: Both age groups show comparable functional outcomes and complication rates. Thus, the locking plate osteosynthesis can be used irrespective of patient age; the treatment decision should instead be based on fracture morphology and individual patient factors.


Cureus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sreenivasulu Metikala ◽  
Nicholas G Poulos ◽  
Khalid Hasan ◽  
Madana Mohana R Vallem

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik Völk ◽  
Markus Neumaier ◽  
Heike Einhellig ◽  
Peter Biberthaler ◽  
Marc Hanschen

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and/or radiologic outcome using different polyaxial locking plates for the treatment of proximal tibia fractures, the Non-Contact-Briding plate (NCB-PT®) by Zimmer or the Variable Angle Locking Compression Plate (VA-LCP®) by Synthes. Methods This study enrolled 28 patients with proximal tibia fractures (AO/ OTA 41 B-C) and indication for locking plate osteosynthesis. All patients were treated with a polyaxial locking plate system. Depending on the fracture morphology, patients were either treated with a NCB-PT® or VA-LCP®. The implant was chosen according to the surgeon’s experience and preference, in case of a higher degree of comminution the tendency was observed to use the NCB-PT® plate. After a time interval of 12 months postoperative we conducted clinical (e.g.exempli gratia range of motion, the Rasmussen score) and radiological (e.g. primary/secondary loss of reduction) follow-ups. Results Patients provided with the NCB-PT® (9 patients) showed longer operation time, use of longer implants, longer interval from injury to surgery and lower clinical scores after the 12 months follow-up compared with the VA-LCP® group (19 patients). Interestingly, the results showed no significant differences regarding the clinical and radiologic outcome. Conclusions The small number of patients as well as the heterogeneity of fractures constitute a limitation of this study. Nevertheless, the differentiated use of implants is associated with comparable clinical and radiological outcomes. This trial emphasizes the need for further prospective randomised trials with higher patient numbers. Trial registration Retrospectively registered 21.12.2020. Registration number NCT04680247.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document