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 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.