Walley Kempland C, Gonzalez Tyler A, Nandyala Sreeharsha V, Macauley Alec, Elnabawi Youssef, Rodriguez Edward K, Appleton Paul T
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania (KCW).
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts (KCW, SVN, AM, YE, EKR, PTA).
Foot Ankle Spec. 2019 Dec;12(6):518-521. doi: 10.1177/1938640018823056. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
While biomechanical characteristics of locking screw fixation versus traditional plating has been studied extensively in orthopaedic literature, clinical outcome studies are lacking. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and complications rate of locking versus traditional nonlocking screws in complex ankle fractures employing distal fibula internal fixation with 1/3 semitubular small fragment plates. A retrospective review was performed between January 2010 and June 2013 of all patients in whom internal fixation of the fibula in an ankle fracture (open or closed) was performed using only 1/3 semitubular small fragment fibular plates. Patient characteristics, fracture patterns, specific screw choice that were placed in the most distal 2 fibular plate holes (either locking or nonlocking), infectious wound complications, and concomitant syndesmotic injury and the need and corresponding purpose for hardware removal were recorded. A total of 135 patients were found to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed for this study. Of the patients with locking screws, 25 of 98 (25%) elected to have hardware removed, while 13 of 37 (35%) of those with nonlocking screws elected hardware removal. This did not reach statistical significance (P = .30). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with regards to age, smoking status, body mass index, diabetes, or use of syndesmotic screw fixation. There was no significant difference in loss of fixation, infection, or other surgical complications in between the groups. There was no significant decrease in the rate of hardware removal with the use of 1/3 tubular locking versus nonlocking plates in the treatment of distal fibula fractures. Despite these screws locking flush to the plate, the hardware is equally symptomatic in both groups. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the 2 groups and our data suggest that the added expense of using locking screws routinely when fixing lateral malleolar fractures should be carefully considered, especially if the fracture pattern does not warrant locking technology. Prognostic, Level III.
虽然骨科文献中已对锁定螺钉固定与传统钢板固定的生物力学特性进行了广泛研究,但缺乏临床疗效研究。本研究的目的是评估在采用1/3半管状小切口钢板进行腓骨远端内固定的复杂踝关节骨折中,锁定螺钉与传统非锁定螺钉的疗效及并发症发生率。对2010年1月至2013年6月期间所有仅使用1/3半管状小切口腓骨钢板对踝关节骨折(开放性或闭合性)进行腓骨内固定的患者进行了回顾性研究。记录患者特征、骨折类型、放置在最远端2个腓骨钢板孔中的特定螺钉选择(锁定或非锁定)、感染性伤口并发症、合并的下胫腓联合损伤以及取出内固定物的必要性和相应目的。共发现135例患者符合纳入标准并纳入本研究分析。在使用锁定螺钉的患者中,98例中有25例(25%)选择取出内固定物,而在使用非锁定螺钉的37例患者中有13例(35%)选择取出内固定物。这未达到统计学显著性(P = 0.30)。两组在年龄、吸烟状况、体重指数、糖尿病或下胫腓联合螺钉固定的使用方面无统计学显著差异。两组在固定失败、感染或其他手术并发症方面无显著差异。在治疗腓骨远端骨折时,使用1/3管状锁定钢板与非锁定钢板取出内固定物的发生率无显著降低。尽管这些螺钉与钢板齐平锁定,但两组内固定物的症状表现相当。两组并发症发生率无显著差异,我们的数据表明,在固定外踝骨折时常规使用锁定螺钉增加的费用应仔细考虑,特别是如果骨折类型不需要锁定技术。预后,III级。