Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 3;8(4):327–331. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.06.005

Table 2.

Review of studies of the antiglide plate fixation since 1990 with focusing on complications and functional results at one year.

Study (antiglide plate) No of patients
Wound dehiscence
Wound infection
Hardware irritation Discomfort
Peroneal tendinopathy/lesions*
Loss of fixation
Nerve problems
Functional results at 1 year
n (%)
Winkler et al.6 93 0 0 2 (2.2) Scale of Weber
66.7% excellent results
27.9% good results
5.4% poor results
Wissing et al.7 48 0 0
Treadwell and Fallat8 70 0 0 0 2 (2.9) lag screw 0
Ostrum9 32 0 0 0 4 (12.5) 0 Questionnaire
62% very satisfied
33% moderately satisfied
5% dissatisfied
Lamontagne et al.14 85 1 (1.2) 6 (7.1) 0 plate Olerud and Molander scoring system mean ankle score 91%
Velez et al.15 22 0 0 2 (9.1) Scale of Weber
13.63% excellent results
81.81% good results
4.5% poor results
Weber and Krause13 70 30 (42.8) 9 (30.0)*
Shin et al.10 22 0 0 2 (9.1) 0 AOFAS score
80
Ha et al.12 49 0 0 0 0 Ankle scoring system
mean ankle score 94%
Ahn et al.17 70 2 (2.9) 3 (4.3) screw 2 (2.9) AOFAS score
90.8 (55–100)