Radha Krishna AM¹, Shivananda S², Jayaram BS¹ and Vijay Bharadwaj³

¹Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Kempe Gowda Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore
²Professor and Head, Department of Orthopaedics, Kempe Gowda Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore
³Postgraduate, Department of Orthopaedics, Kempe Gowda Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore

*Corresponding Author:Vijay Bharadwaj, Postgraduate, Department of Orthopaedics, Kempe Gowda Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore.

Received: October 10, 2022; Published: November 03, 2022

Abstract

Background and Objectives: For managing humerus shaft fractures, limited contact dynamic compression plates (LC-DCP) were developed to limit contact between the bone and plate. Off late, a novel bio-friendly, locking compression plates (LCP) are hypothesized to be more suitable especially for osteoporotic bones. Current study was conducted to evaluate and compare clinical, functional and radiological outcomes and complications associated with them.

Methodology: This comparative longitudinal study conducted for a period of 18 months among subjects with fracture of humerus shaft. Subjects were assessed for 6-month follow-up. Functional outcomes were measured by Constant and Murley scoring system and Pain by using VAS score. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Result: W20 cases each managed by LCP and LCDCP respectively. Baseline details were statistically comparable (p > 0.05) between study groups. RTA was the commonest mode of injury. Commonest fracture pattern noted was transverse type (40%). Fracture union time was 18-24 weeks commonest among both study groups. Range of motion was 75% cases in both groups. Most patient had Constant and Murley Score between 71-85 indicating good outcome at final follow-up. 85% cases in both study groups had mild pain by VAS score at follow-up. Statistically all the patient outcome parameters were noted to be comparable between study groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: The Results were statistically comparable between both study groups, indicating that results from both Plates are equivalent and can be adopted to manage shaft of humerus fractures. Both the Plates were noted to be safe.

Keywords: Humerus; Fracture; Diaphyseal Fractures; Limited Contact Dynamic; Compression Plates (LC-DCP); Locking Compression Plates (LCP)

References

1. Attum B and Thompson JH. “Humerus Fractures Overview”. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing (2020).
2. Garnavos C. “Humeral Shaft Fractures”. In: Court-Brown CM, Heckman JD, McQueen MM, Ricci WM, Tornetta P, McKee MD, editors. Rockwood and Green’s fractures in adults, 8^th Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer (2015): 1287-1340.
3. Schoch BS., et al. “Humeral shaft fractures: national trends in management”. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology3 (2017): 259-263.
4. Ji C., et al. “Assessment of incidence and various demographic risk factors of traumatic humeral shaft fractures in China”. Scientific Reports1 (2019): 1-9.
5. Gupta P and Jain N. “Humerus Midshaft Fractures-nailing or Plating? A Prospective Study Over 60 Patients”. Journal of Bone and Joint Diseases3 (2018): 18-21.
6. Singh N., et al. “Study of role of limited contact dynamic compression plates versus locking plates in long bone fracture management”. International Journal of Research in Orthopaedics 5 (2019): 1078-1082.
7. Spiguel AR and Steffner RJ. “Humeral shaft fractures”. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 5 (2012): 177-183.
8. Denies E., et al. “Operative Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures. Comparison of Plating and Intramedullary Nailing”. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 76 (2010): 735-742.
9. Bell MJ., et al. “The results of plating humeral shaft factures in patients with multiple injuries: The sunny brook Experience”. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British 67 (1985): 293-296.
10. Xiong Y., et al. “Comparison of interface contact profiles of a new minimum contact locking compression plate and the limited contact dynamic compression plate”. International Orthopaedics 34 (2010): 715-718.
11. Jacobs RR., et al. “Effects of plates on cortical bone perfusion”. Journal of Trauma 21 (1981): 91-95.
12. McKee MD., et al. “The application of limited dynamic compression plate in the upper extremity: an analysis of 114 consecutive cases”. Injury10 (1955): 193-197.
13. Xiong Y., et al. “Comparison of a new minimum contact locking plate and the limited contact dynamic compression plate in an osteoporotic fracture model”. International Orthopaedics 33 (2009): 1415-1419.
14. Wagner M. “General principles for the clinical use of the LCP”. Injury 34 (2003): B31-42.
15. Shen L., et al. “Internal fixation of humeral shaft fractures using minimally invasive plating: comparative study of two implants”. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 5 (2013): 527-534.
16. Khalid MU., et al. “Comparison of Locking Compression Plate and Dynamic Compression Plate with Cancellous Bone Graft in Treating Non-Union of Humeral Shaft Fractures”. Annals KEMU2 (2019): 110-115.
17. Patel M., et al. “Comparative study of locking compression plate v/s limited contact dynamic compression plate in the treatment of diaphyseal fractures of humerus: A prospective study”. International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences3 (2020): 205-211.

Citation

Citation: Vijay Bharadwaj., et al. “An Outcome Analysis of Locking Versus Limited Contact Dynamic Compression Plate in Surgical Management of Shaft of Humerus Fracture - A Comparative, Longitudinal Study”. Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 5.12 (2022): 04-13.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Vijay Bharadwaj., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.