Are locking plates better than non-locking plates for treating distal tibial fractures?

Christian Bastias, Hugo Henríquez, Manuel Pellegrini, Stefan Rammelt, Natalio Cuchacovich, Leonardo Lagos*, Giovanni Carcuro

*Autor correspondiente de este trabajo

Producción científica: Contribución a una revistaArtículorevisión exhaustiva

15 Citas (Scopus)


Background: Locking and non-locking plates has been used for distal tibia fracture osteosynthesis. Sufficient evidence to favor one implant over the other is lacking in the current literature. Our aim is to compare them in terms of fracture healing, alignment, functional outcome, complications. Methods: Sixty-eight patients operated on using a percutaneous plate were retrospectively reviewed. They were divided into two groups: in group 1 (28 patients) a 4.5. mm narrow conventional dynamic compression plate (DCP) was used. In group 2 (40 patients) a titanium locked compression plate (LCP) was used. Results: Mean time to union was 16.2 and 15.4 weeks for group 1 and 2, respectively (p= 0.618). 11 patients (39.3%) in group 1 and 4 patients (10%) in group 2 showed malalignment (p= 0.016). AOFAS scores at follow up were 89 and 88 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Implant removal was necessary in 9 cases (32.1%) and 4 cases (10%) in group 1 and group 2, respectively (p= 0.042). Three patients (10.7%) in group 1 and three patients (7.5%) in group 2 had an infection. Conclusions: Both plating systems have similar results in terms of time to union, infection, and AOFAS scores. The LCP seems superior with respect to alignment and the need for implant removal.

Idioma originalInglés
Páginas (desde-hasta)115-119
Número de páginas5
PublicaciónFoot and Ankle Surgery
EstadoPublicada - jun. 2014
Publicado de forma externa


Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Are locking plates better than non-locking plates for treating distal tibial fractures?'. En conjunto forman una huella única.

Citar esto