J Korean Fract Soc.  2007 Jul;20(3):246-251. 10.12671/jkfs.2007.20.3.246.

Comparison of LC-DCP versus LCP for Internal Fixation of Humeral Shaft Fractures in Elderly Patient

• Hur CY
• Shon WY
• Moon JG
• Han SH
• Hong JY
• Chun SK

• KMID: 2296825
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.12671/jkfs.2007.20.3.246

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare outcomes of humeral shaft fractures fixed with locking compression plate and those fixed with dynamic compression plate in elderly patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Nineteen consecutive elderly patients with a fracture of the humeral diaphysis were evaluated retrospectively. Ten patients had been fixed with LC-DCP, and nine had been fixed with LCP. Radiological and clinical results were compared and comparison of implants was done.
RESULTS
Loosening of the plate occurred in one case each from the LCP group and the LC-DCP group. The rest of the patients achieved union uneventfully without any complications. Union rate, clinical score and hardware were not significantly different between the two groups. One patient who developed loosening in the LC DCP underwent reoperation whereas one patient with loosening in the LCP was successfully managed conservatively.
CONCLUSION
Principle of fracture fixation was more important than plate selection in humeral shaft fracture of elderly patient.

Keyword

Humerus; Shaft fracture; Osteoporosis; LC-DCP; LCP

MeSH Terms

Aged*
Diaphyses
Fracture Fixation
Humans
Humerus
Osteoporosis
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Postoperative radiographs show development loosening of LC-DCP. Follow-up radiographs show progress of loosening and reoperation.

• 

  Fig. 2 Postoperative radiographs show loosening of LCP. Follow-up radiographs shows union of fracture site without further loosening.

Reference

1. Benum P. The use of bone cement as an adjunct to internal fixation of supracondylar fractures of osteoporotic femurs. Acta Orthop Scand. 1977; 48:52–56.

2. Bosworth DM. Blade plate fixation: technic suitable for fractures of the surgical neck of the humerus and similar lesions. J Am Med Assoc. 1949; 141:1111–1113.

3. Chiu FY, Chen CM, Lin CF, Lo WH, Huang YL, Chen TH. Closed humeral shaft fractures: a prospective evaluation of surgical treatment. J Trauma. 1997; 43:947–951.

4. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; 214:160–164.

5. Cooney WP. Humerus fractures: operative treatment, complications and reconstructive surgery. In : Evarts CM, editor. Surgery of the musculoskeletal system. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone;1990. p. 1631–1660.

6. Dabezies EJ, Banta CJ, Murphy CP, d'Ambrosia RD. Plate fixation of the humeral shaft for acute fractures, with and without radial nerve injuries. J Orthop Trauma. 1992; 6:10–13.

7. Dijkstra S, Stapert J, Boxma H, Wiggers T. Treatment of pathological fractures of the humeral shaft due to bone metastases: a comparison of intramedullary locking nail and plate osteosynthesis with adjunctive bone cement. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996; 22:621–626.

8. Frigg R. Development of the locking compression plate. Injury. 2003; 34:Suppl 2. B6–B10.

9. Frigg R. Locking compression plate (LCP). An osteosynthesis plate based on the dynamic compression plate and the point contact fixator (PC-Fix). Injury. 2001; 32:Suppl 2. 63–66.

10. Fulkerson E, Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Liporace F, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ. Fixation of diaphyseal fractures with a segmental defect: a biomechanical comparison of locked and conventional plating techniques. J Trauma. 2006; 60:830–835.

11. Ganz R, Isler B, Mast J. Internal fixation technique in pathological fractures of the extremities. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1984; 103:73–80.

12. Gardenr MJ, Brophy RH, Campbell D, et al. The mechanical behavior of locking compression plates compared with dynamic compression plates in a cadaver radius model. J Orthop Trauma. 2005; 19:597–603.

13. Gautier E, Sommer C. Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury. 2003; 34:Suppl 2. B63–B76.

14. Haidukewych GJ. Innovations in locking plate technology. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004; 12:205–212.

15. Instrum K, Fennell C, Shrive N, Damson E, Sonnabend D, Hollinshead R. Semitubular blade plate fixation in proximal humeral fractures: a biomechanical study in a cadaveric model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998; 7:462–466.

16. Jupiter JB, Mullaji AB. Blade plate fixation of proximal humeral non-unions. Injury. 1994; 25:301–303.

17. Kolodziej P, Lee FS, Patel A, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the schuhli nut. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; 347:79–85.

18. Koval KJ, Hoehl JJ, Kummer FJ, Simon JA. Distal femoral fixation: a biomechanical comparison of the standard condylar buttress plate, a locked buttress plate, and the 95-degree blade plate. J Orthop Trauma. 1997; 11:521–524.

19. Leung F, Zhu L, Ho H, Lu WW, Chow SP. Palmar plate fixation of AO type C2 fracture of distal radius using a locking compression plate - a biomechanical study in a cadaveric model. J Hand Surg Br. 2003; 28:263–266.

20. Perren SM. Evolution and rationale of locked internal fixator technology Introductory remarks. Injury. 2001; 32:Suppl 2. B3–B9.

21. Ring D, Kloen P, Kadzielski J, Helfet D, Jupiter JB. Locking compression plates for osteoporotic nonunions of the diaphyseal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 425:50–54.

22. Ring D, Perey BH, Jupiter JB. The functional outcome of operative treatment of ununited fractures of the humeral diaphysis in older patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81:177–190.

23. Sarmiento A, Zagorski JB, Zych GA, Latta LL, Capps CA. Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82:478–486.

24. Sehr JR, Szabo RM. Semitubular blade plate for fixation in the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 1988; 2:327–332.

25. Simon JA, Dennis MG, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ. Schuhli augmentation of plate and screw fixation for humeral shaft fractures: a laboratory study. J Orthop Trauma. 1999; 13:196–199.

26. Wagner M. General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury. 2003; 34:Suppl 2. B31–B42.