Cargando…

Comparison of three plate system for lateral malleolar fixation

BACKGROUND: This study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes with three different implants and evaluate the effectiveness of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) technique for the distal fibular fractures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort single-surgical team single...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, ZeYu, Liu, Lei, Tu, ChongQi, Zhang, Hui, Fang, Yue, Yang, TianFu, Pei, FuXing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4223732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25358474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-360
_version_ 1782343250574573568
author Huang, ZeYu
Liu, Lei
Tu, ChongQi
Zhang, Hui
Fang, Yue
Yang, TianFu
Pei, FuXing
author_facet Huang, ZeYu
Liu, Lei
Tu, ChongQi
Zhang, Hui
Fang, Yue
Yang, TianFu
Pei, FuXing
author_sort Huang, ZeYu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes with three different implants and evaluate the effectiveness of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) technique for the distal fibular fractures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort single-surgical team single-facility study between 2000 and 2011. 147 patients receiving surgical interventions for closed, displaced distal fibular fractures were included. Based on the different implants, patients were divided into three groups: Group A: one-third tubular plate; Group B: locking compression (LCP) metaphyseal plate; Group C: LCP distal fibula plate. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared among the three groups. RESULTS: Totally, we found that patients in Group C had significant higher functional scores than those in Group A (p1 = 0.004; p2 = 0.002) (p1 stands for the p value for Olerud & Molandar Score, p2 stands for the p value for American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score). The healing time was significant less in Group C than that in Group A (p < 0.0001) and Group B (p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed that: (1) For Weber A fracture, the functional scores of the Group C were higher than those in Group A (p1 = 0.020; p2 = 0.029) and B (p1 = 0.020; p2 = 0.034). (2) For Weber B fracture, the functional scores of the Group B (p1 = 0.033; p2 = 0.030) and C (p1 = 0.027; p2 = 0.017) were higher than those in Group A. No significant differences were observed in terms of the ankle range of motion, reduction accuracy and complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated using LCP metaphyseal plate in patients associated with lateral malleolar fracture could achieve significantly better OMS & AOFAS scores and less healing time than using one-third tubular plate. Specifically, For Weber A fracture, LCP distal fibula plate is much better than one-third tubular plate and LCP metaphyseal plate. While for Weber B fracture, LCP distal fibula plate and LCP metaphyseal plate are better than one-third tubular plate. As to the complications, using MIPO technique in patients with distal fibular fractures is at least comparable to the traditional one. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-360) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4223732
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42237322014-11-08 Comparison of three plate system for lateral malleolar fixation Huang, ZeYu Liu, Lei Tu, ChongQi Zhang, Hui Fang, Yue Yang, TianFu Pei, FuXing BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: This study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes with three different implants and evaluate the effectiveness of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) technique for the distal fibular fractures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort single-surgical team single-facility study between 2000 and 2011. 147 patients receiving surgical interventions for closed, displaced distal fibular fractures were included. Based on the different implants, patients were divided into three groups: Group A: one-third tubular plate; Group B: locking compression (LCP) metaphyseal plate; Group C: LCP distal fibula plate. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared among the three groups. RESULTS: Totally, we found that patients in Group C had significant higher functional scores than those in Group A (p1 = 0.004; p2 = 0.002) (p1 stands for the p value for Olerud & Molandar Score, p2 stands for the p value for American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score). The healing time was significant less in Group C than that in Group A (p < 0.0001) and Group B (p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed that: (1) For Weber A fracture, the functional scores of the Group C were higher than those in Group A (p1 = 0.020; p2 = 0.029) and B (p1 = 0.020; p2 = 0.034). (2) For Weber B fracture, the functional scores of the Group B (p1 = 0.033; p2 = 0.030) and C (p1 = 0.027; p2 = 0.017) were higher than those in Group A. No significant differences were observed in terms of the ankle range of motion, reduction accuracy and complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated using LCP metaphyseal plate in patients associated with lateral malleolar fracture could achieve significantly better OMS & AOFAS scores and less healing time than using one-third tubular plate. Specifically, For Weber A fracture, LCP distal fibula plate is much better than one-third tubular plate and LCP metaphyseal plate. While for Weber B fracture, LCP distal fibula plate and LCP metaphyseal plate are better than one-third tubular plate. As to the complications, using MIPO technique in patients with distal fibular fractures is at least comparable to the traditional one. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-360) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4223732/ /pubmed/25358474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-360 Text en © Huang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Huang, ZeYu
Liu, Lei
Tu, ChongQi
Zhang, Hui
Fang, Yue
Yang, TianFu
Pei, FuXing
Comparison of three plate system for lateral malleolar fixation
title Comparison of three plate system for lateral malleolar fixation
title_full Comparison of three plate system for lateral malleolar fixation
title_fullStr Comparison of three plate system for lateral malleolar fixation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of three plate system for lateral malleolar fixation
title_short Comparison of three plate system for lateral malleolar fixation
title_sort comparison of three plate system for lateral malleolar fixation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4223732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25358474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-360
work_keys_str_mv AT huangzeyu comparisonofthreeplatesystemforlateralmalleolarfixation
AT liulei comparisonofthreeplatesystemforlateralmalleolarfixation
AT tuchongqi comparisonofthreeplatesystemforlateralmalleolarfixation
AT zhanghui comparisonofthreeplatesystemforlateralmalleolarfixation
AT fangyue comparisonofthreeplatesystemforlateralmalleolarfixation
AT yangtianfu comparisonofthreeplatesystemforlateralmalleolarfixation
AT peifuxing comparisonofthreeplatesystemforlateralmalleolarfixation