2013•PubMedRequires access

[Comparison study on locking compress plate external fixator and standard external fixator for treatment of tibial open fractures].

Gang Wu, Xiaozhong Luo, Lun Tan, Lin Hua Xu, Chao Wu, Guo Yong, Zewei Zhong

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical results of locking compress plate (LCP) as an external fixator and standard external fixator for treatment of tibial open fractures. METHODS: Between May 2009 and June 2012, 59 patients with tibial open fractures were treated with LCP as an external fixator in 36 patients (group A), and with standard external fixator in 23 patients (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, affected side, type of fracture, location, and interval between injury and surgery between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The time of fracture healing and incision healing, the time of partial weight-bearing, the range of motion (ROM) of knee and ankle, and complications were compared between 2 groups. RESULTS: The incidence of pin-track infection in group A (0) was significantly lower than that in group B (21.7%) (P=0.007). No significant difference was found in the incidence of superficial infection and deep infection of incision, and the time of incision healing between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 cases of group A and 2 cases of group B, showing no significant difference (Chi(2)=0.036, P=0.085). All patients were followed up 15.2 months on average (range, 9-28 months) in group A, and 18.6 months on average (range, 9-47 months) in group B. The malunion rate and nonunion rate showed no significant difference between groups A and B (0 versus 13.0% and 0 versus 8.7%, P > 0.05); the delayed union rate of group A (2.8%) was significantly lower than that of group B (21.7%) (Chi(2)=5.573, P=0.018). Group A had shorter time of fracture healing, quicker partial weight-bearing, greater ROM of the knee and ankle than group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The LCP external fixator can obtain reliable fixation in treating tibial open fracture, and has good patients' compliance, so it is helpful to do functional exercise, improve fracture healing and function recovery, and reduce the complication incidence.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical results of locking compress plate (LCP) as an external fixator and standard external fixator for treatment of tibial open fractures. METHODS: Between May 2009 and June 2012, 59 patients with tibial open fractures were treated with LCP as an external fixator in 36 patients (group A), and with standard external fixator in 23 patients (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, affected side, type of fracture, location, and interval between injury and surgery between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The time of fracture healing and incision healing, the time of partial weight-bearing, the range of motion (ROM) of knee and ankle, and complications were compared between 2 groups. RESULTS: The incidence of pin-track infection in group A (0) was significantly lower than that in group B (21.7%) (P=0.007). No significant difference was found in the incidence of superficial infection and deep infection of incision, and the time of incision healing between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 cases of group A and 2 cases of group B, showing no significant difference (Chi(2)=0.036, P=0.085). All patients were followed up 15.2 months on average (range, 9-28 months) in group A, and 18.6 months on average (range, 9-47 months) in group B. The malunion rate and nonunion rate showed no significant difference between groups A and B (0 versus 13.0% and 0 versus 8.7%, P > 0.05); the delayed union rate of group A (2.8%) was significantly lower than that of group B (21.7%) (Chi(2)=5.573, P=0.018). Group A had shorter time of fracture healing, quicker partial weight-bearing, greater ROM of the knee and ankle than group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The LCP external fixator can obtain reliable fixation in treating tibial open fracture, and has good patients' compliance, so it is helpful to do functional exercise, improve fracture healing and function recovery, and reduce the complication incidence.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical results of locking compress plate (LCP) as an external fixator and standard external fixator for treatment of tibial open fractures. METHODS: Between May 2009 and June 2012, 59 patients with tibial open fractures were treated with LCP as an external fixator in 36 patients (group A), and with standard external fixator in 23 patients (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, affected side, type of fracture, location, and interval between injury and surgery between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The time of fracture healing and incision healing, the time of partial weight-bearing, the range of motion (ROM) of knee and ankle, and complications were compared between 2 groups. RESULTS: The incidence of pin-track infection in group A (0) was significantly lower than that in group B (21.7%) (P=0.007). No significant difference was found in the incidence of superficial infection and deep infection of incision, and the time of incision healing between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 cases of group A and 2 cases of group B, showing no significant difference (Chi(2)=0.036, P=0.085). All patients were followed up 15.2 months on average (range, 9-28 months) in group A, and 18.6 months on average (range, 9-47 months) in group B. The malunion rate and nonunion rate showed no significant difference between groups A and B (0 versus 13.0% and 0 versus 8.7%, P > 0.05); the delayed union rate of group A (2.8%) was significantly lower than that of group B (21.7%) (Chi(2)=5.573, P=0.018). Group A had shorter time of fracture healing, quicker partial weight-bearing, greater ROM of the knee and ankle than group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The LCP external fixator can obtain reliable fixation in treating tibial open fracture, and has good patients' compliance, so it is helpful to do functional exercise, improve fracture healing and function recovery, and reduce the complication incidence.

Key concepts: Medicine, Malunion, Surgery, External fixator, Ankle, Nonunion, Bone healing, External fixation

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Comparison study on locking compress plate external fixator and standard external fixator for treatment of tibial open fractures]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens