Table 2.
The retrospective series that used locking plates for fixation are compared
| Author | Number of patients | Average followup | Fixation method | Union rate | Complications | Functional result | Implant removal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klein et al. [14] | 16 | 12 months | 1. Synthes LCP (13/16) 2. Acumed precontoured (3/16) 3. Suture cerclage (16/16) |
94% | Deep infection (1) | Average ASES 77 | 5 |
| Kalamaras et al. [13] | 8 | 10–19 months | 1. Synthes distal radius volar LCP (8/8) 2. Suture cerclage (6/8) |
100% | Superficial infection (1) Malreduction (1) |
Average Constant 96 | 0 |
| Herrmann et al. [10] | 7 | 8.3 months | 3.5 mm locking T-plate with suture cerclage | 100% | None | Average Constant 93.3 Average DASH 15.3 |
2 |
| Kaipel et al. [12] | 11 | 4 months | Synthes 2.4 mm LCP (2 per patient) | 100% | Screw loosening (2) | 10/11 patients with full ROM | 3 |
| Yu et al. [35] | 6 | 2–3 months | Synthes distal radius volar LCP | 100% | NR | Constant (95–100) | NR |
| Andersen et al. (present study) | 20 | 30.7 months | Locked plates ± suture cerclage, CC screw | 94% | Infected nonunion (1) Peri-implant fracture (1) |
Average ASES 79.0 | 4 |
NR = not reported; ASES = American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; DASH = Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand.