Cargando…

Tubular vs Profile Plate in Peroneal or Bimalleolar Fractures: is There a Real Difference in Skin Complication? A Retrospective Study in Three Level I Trauma Center

INTRODUCTION: Not enough literature is available to evalute the wound complication rate of plates type in distal fibular fractures. AIM: The aim of our study was to compare wound complications of using a third tubular plate compared to LCP distal fibula plate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study is a r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Petruccelli, Rosario, Bisaccia, Michele, Rinonapoli, Giuseppe, Rollo, Giuseppe, Meccariello, Luigi, Falzarano, Gabriele, Ceccarini, Paolo, Bisaccia, Olga, Giaracuni, Marco, Caraffa, Auro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AVICENA, d.o.o., Sarajevo 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5585791/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28974847
http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2017.71.265-269
_version_ 1783261695123128320
author Petruccelli, Rosario
Bisaccia, Michele
Rinonapoli, Giuseppe
Rollo, Giuseppe
Meccariello, Luigi
Falzarano, Gabriele
Ceccarini, Paolo
Bisaccia, Olga
Giaracuni, Marco
Caraffa, Auro
author_facet Petruccelli, Rosario
Bisaccia, Michele
Rinonapoli, Giuseppe
Rollo, Giuseppe
Meccariello, Luigi
Falzarano, Gabriele
Ceccarini, Paolo
Bisaccia, Olga
Giaracuni, Marco
Caraffa, Auro
author_sort Petruccelli, Rosario
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Not enough literature is available to evalute the wound complication rate of plates type in distal fibular fractures. AIM: The aim of our study was to compare wound complications of using a third tubular plate compared to LCP distal fibula plate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study is a retrospective single-centre study in which was performed plating of fibula in closed ankle fractures. 93 patients were included in our study and assigned in two groups, based on using of different implant : in group A 48 patients were treated with one-third tubular and in group B 45 patients were treated with LCP distal fibula plate. There were no significant differences in the baseline characterisctics. Patients received the same surgical procedure and the same post-operative care, then they were radiologically evalueted at 1-3-12 months and clinical examination was made at 12 months using AOFAS clinical rating system. Categorical data, grouped into distinct categories, were evalueted using Chi-square test. We considered a p value < 0.05 as statistically significant. RESULTS: The wound complications rate of the overall study group was 7.6%. There were no statistical differences in the rate of wound complications between the two groups. There were no differences between both group in percentage of hardware removal at follow-up (overall 5.4%); plate removal was performed earlier in the locking plate because of wound complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has shown no difference in radiographic bone union rate, no significant differences in terms of clinical outcomes, in time of bone reduction and wound complication rate between the LCP distal fibula plate and conventional one-third tubular plate. Controversy still exists about the best method for the fracture reduction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5585791
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher AVICENA, d.o.o., Sarajevo
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55857912017-10-03 Tubular vs Profile Plate in Peroneal or Bimalleolar Fractures: is There a Real Difference in Skin Complication? A Retrospective Study in Three Level I Trauma Center Petruccelli, Rosario Bisaccia, Michele Rinonapoli, Giuseppe Rollo, Giuseppe Meccariello, Luigi Falzarano, Gabriele Ceccarini, Paolo Bisaccia, Olga Giaracuni, Marco Caraffa, Auro Med Arch Original Paper INTRODUCTION: Not enough literature is available to evalute the wound complication rate of plates type in distal fibular fractures. AIM: The aim of our study was to compare wound complications of using a third tubular plate compared to LCP distal fibula plate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study is a retrospective single-centre study in which was performed plating of fibula in closed ankle fractures. 93 patients were included in our study and assigned in two groups, based on using of different implant : in group A 48 patients were treated with one-third tubular and in group B 45 patients were treated with LCP distal fibula plate. There were no significant differences in the baseline characterisctics. Patients received the same surgical procedure and the same post-operative care, then they were radiologically evalueted at 1-3-12 months and clinical examination was made at 12 months using AOFAS clinical rating system. Categorical data, grouped into distinct categories, were evalueted using Chi-square test. We considered a p value < 0.05 as statistically significant. RESULTS: The wound complications rate of the overall study group was 7.6%. There were no statistical differences in the rate of wound complications between the two groups. There were no differences between both group in percentage of hardware removal at follow-up (overall 5.4%); plate removal was performed earlier in the locking plate because of wound complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has shown no difference in radiographic bone union rate, no significant differences in terms of clinical outcomes, in time of bone reduction and wound complication rate between the LCP distal fibula plate and conventional one-third tubular plate. Controversy still exists about the best method for the fracture reduction. AVICENA, d.o.o., Sarajevo 2017-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5585791/ /pubmed/28974847 http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2017.71.265-269 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Rosario Petruccelli, Michele Bisaccia, Giuseppe Rinonapoli, Giuseppe Rollo, Luigi Meccariello, Gabriele Falzarano, Paolo Ceccarini, Olga Bisaccia, Marco Giaracuni, Auro Caraffa http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Petruccelli, Rosario
Bisaccia, Michele
Rinonapoli, Giuseppe
Rollo, Giuseppe
Meccariello, Luigi
Falzarano, Gabriele
Ceccarini, Paolo
Bisaccia, Olga
Giaracuni, Marco
Caraffa, Auro
Tubular vs Profile Plate in Peroneal or Bimalleolar Fractures: is There a Real Difference in Skin Complication? A Retrospective Study in Three Level I Trauma Center
title Tubular vs Profile Plate in Peroneal or Bimalleolar Fractures: is There a Real Difference in Skin Complication? A Retrospective Study in Three Level I Trauma Center
title_full Tubular vs Profile Plate in Peroneal or Bimalleolar Fractures: is There a Real Difference in Skin Complication? A Retrospective Study in Three Level I Trauma Center
title_fullStr Tubular vs Profile Plate in Peroneal or Bimalleolar Fractures: is There a Real Difference in Skin Complication? A Retrospective Study in Three Level I Trauma Center
title_full_unstemmed Tubular vs Profile Plate in Peroneal or Bimalleolar Fractures: is There a Real Difference in Skin Complication? A Retrospective Study in Three Level I Trauma Center
title_short Tubular vs Profile Plate in Peroneal or Bimalleolar Fractures: is There a Real Difference in Skin Complication? A Retrospective Study in Three Level I Trauma Center
title_sort tubular vs profile plate in peroneal or bimalleolar fractures: is there a real difference in skin complication? a retrospective study in three level i trauma center
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5585791/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28974847
http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2017.71.265-269
work_keys_str_mv AT petruccellirosario tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter
AT bisacciamichele tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter
AT rinonapoligiuseppe tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter
AT rollogiuseppe tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter
AT meccarielloluigi tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter
AT falzaranogabriele tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter
AT ceccarinipaolo tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter
AT bisacciaolga tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter
AT giaracunimarco tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter
AT caraffaauro tubularvsprofileplateinperonealorbimalleolarfracturesistherearealdifferenceinskincomplicationaretrospectivestudyinthreelevelitraumacenter