Comparison of Locking Versus Nonlocking Plates for Distal Fibula Fractures
The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, ISSN: 1067-2516, Vol: 57, Issue: 4, Page: 664-667
2018
- 33Citations
- 64Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations33
- Citation Indexes33
- 33
- CrossRef20
- Captures64
- Readers64
- 64
Article Description
Locking plates might offer a biomechanical fixation advantage for distal fibula fractures with comminution or osteoporotic bone. In January 2011, our unit introduced a bone-specific locking plate for the distal fibula. The aim of the present study was to compare it against more conventional plating system implants for lateral malleolar fixation in terms of outcomes, crude costs, and complications. We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive cohort of patients with closed ankle fractures who presented within a 24-month period. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared among conventional plating using a one-third semitubular plate, a 3.5-mm limited-contact dynamic compression plate, and a 2.7-mm/3.5-mm locking compression distal fibula plate. A total of 145 patients with ankle fractures underwent surgical fixation: 87 (60.0%) with the semitubular plate, 22 (15.2%) with the limited-contact dynamic compression plate, and 36 (24.8%) with the locking compression distal fibula plate. A greater proportion of patients with established osteoporosis or osteoporosis risk factors were in the locking compression distal fibula plate group (27.8% versus 2.3% and 0%). Four patients (2.8%) required washout for infection. No significant differences were found between the sex distribution within the 3 groups ( p = .432). No significant difference was found in the complication rate ( p = .914) or the reoperation rate ( p = .291) among the 3 groups. Although costing >6 times more than a standard fibula fixation construct (implant cost), bone-specific locking compression distal fibula plates add to the portfolio of implants available, especially for unstable fractures with poor bone quality.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067251617306865; http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2017.11.035; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85045839591&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29681437; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1067251617306865; https://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2017.11.035
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know