Abstract
Locking compression plate (LCP) has been developed by deferent concepts compared with conventional plate (CP), and these advantages have been described in many studies. But there were a few reports pointing out problems. In this study, we considered complications of LCP, compared bone union periods with or without locking screws, and discussed indications and limitations of LCP.
In proximal humerus fracture, 7 of 76 cases were varus deformity. In one clavicle fracture case and 1 femoral shaft fracture case, loosening of plate was occurred and required second surgery. Two cases of distal tibia fracture, screws in the proximal bone fragment were broken. In bone union period of femoral shaft and distal femur fractures, LCP cases were 15.3 weeks, whereas CP cases were 11.8 weeks. One case of LCP have been delayed union and required revision operation.
Locking screws are inserted fixed direction, so in carved bone, they are not inserted center of the bone. LCP were more rigid by block fixation, but there is a limitation in remarkable osteoporotic bone. Locking screws in distal tibia fracture are too slim to early weight bearing, so we are required to make attention to screw breakage. In distal femur fracture, there is loosening between screws and plate by using CP, loosening makes varus deformity and fracture gap is decreased. In the result, compared to CP, deformity is less, but bone union period is longer with LCP.
