Anatomical locking plate versus common reconstruction plate in the treatment of acetabular posterior wall fracture
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20211022-00461
- VernacularTitle:解剖型锁定钢板与普通重建钢板固定治疗髋臼后壁骨折的疗效比较
- Author:
Ning CHANG
1
;
Jinglei XU
;
Chenyang XU
;
Junsen DENG
;
Xianda YI
;
Wanpo MIAO
;
Xue BAI
;
Xianzhong MA
Author Information
1. 河南省洛阳正骨医院，河南省骨科医院骨盆创伤外科，郑州 450000
- Keywords:
Acetabulum;
Fractures, bone;
Fracture fixation, internal;
Bone plates;
Anatomical posterior wall locking plate
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2021;23(12):1018-1024
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the curative effects between anatomic locking plate and common reconstruction plate in the treatment of acetabular posterior wall fracture.Methods:The 50 patients with acetabular posterior wall fracture were retrospectively analyzed who had been admitted to Department of Pelvic Trauma Surgery, Luoyang Orthopaedic Hospital of Henan Province from February 2015 to February 2020. They were assigned into 2 groups according to different internal fixation methods. In the reconstruction plate group of 24 patients whose fractures were fixated by a common reconstruction plate from February 2015 to June 2017, there were 21 males and 3 females with an age of (38.9±10.9) years. In the anatomical plate group of 26 patients whose fractures were fixated by an anatomic locking plate between July 2017 and February 2020, there were 20 males and 6 females with an age of (38.0±10.0) years. The 2 groups were compared in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, reduction quality, hip function and complications at the last follow-up.Results:There was no significant difference in the preoperative general data between the 2 groups, indicating the 2 groups were comparable ( P>0.05). The 50 patients were followed up for 18 to 26 months (mean, 22 months). The operation time [(132.8±8.6) min] and intraoperative blood loss [(357.0±14.7) mL] in the anatomic plate group were significantly less than those [(177.2±5.9) min and (492.0±17.6) mL] in the reconstruction plate group( P<0.05). Postoperative CT examination showed that 96.2% (25/26) of the patients in the anatomical plate group and 91.7% (22/24) of the patients in the reconstruction plate group had a fracture step ≤3 mm, showing no significant difference ( P>0.05). At the last follow-up, the excellent and good rate by Harris hip score was 92.3% (24/26) in the anatomic plate group, significantly higher than that (66.7%, 16/24) in the reconstruction plate group ( P<0.05). The incidence of complications was 3.8% (1/26) in the anatomic plate group, significantly lower than that [29.2% (7/24)] in the reconstruction plate group ( P<0.05). Conclusion:Anatomical locking plate is better than common reconstruction plate in the treatment of acetabular posterior wall fracture.
