File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing the Limited Contact Dynamic Compression Plate with the Point Contact Fixator for Forearm Fractures

TitleA Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing the Limited Contact Dynamic Compression Plate with the Point Contact Fixator for Forearm Fractures
Authors
Issue Date2003
PublisherJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.jbjs.org
Citation
Journal Of Bone And Joint Surgery - Series A, 2003, v. 85 n. 12, p. 2343-2348 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: The most effective type of plate fixation for diaphyseal forearm fractures has not been defined. We performed a prospective, randomized trial in which the limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) was compared with the Point Contact Fixator (PC-Fix) for the treatment of forearm fractures at one center. Methods: Ninety-two patients with 125 forearm fractures were recruited for the study and were randomly assigned to fracture fixation with one of the two devices. The average age of the patients was thirty-six years. The average duration of follow-up was twenty-two months. Patients were assessed periodically with use of radiographs and were assessed with regard to pain and function at time of the latest follow-up. Results: Three patients (four fractures) in the PC-Fix group and five patients (five fractures) in the LC-DCP group had a delayed union, but no patient in either group had a nonunion. With the numbers available, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to operative time, time to union, callus formation, pain, or functional outcome. Deep infection occurred in one patient with a closed fracture in the PC-Fix group and in one patient with an open fracture in the LC-DCP group. In addition, one refracture occurred in each group. Both refractures occurred at the site of a screw track. Conclusion: Despite the differences in the concept of fracture fixation, these two implants appear to be equally effective for the treatment of diaphyseal forearm fractures. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level I-lb (randomized controlled trial [no significant difference but narrow confidence intervals]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/79734
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 5.163
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.938
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Fen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChow, SPen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T07:57:59Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T07:57:59Z-
dc.date.issued2003en_HK
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Bone And Joint Surgery - Series A, 2003, v. 85 n. 12, p. 2343-2348en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0021-9355en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/79734-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The most effective type of plate fixation for diaphyseal forearm fractures has not been defined. We performed a prospective, randomized trial in which the limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) was compared with the Point Contact Fixator (PC-Fix) for the treatment of forearm fractures at one center. Methods: Ninety-two patients with 125 forearm fractures were recruited for the study and were randomly assigned to fracture fixation with one of the two devices. The average age of the patients was thirty-six years. The average duration of follow-up was twenty-two months. Patients were assessed periodically with use of radiographs and were assessed with regard to pain and function at time of the latest follow-up. Results: Three patients (four fractures) in the PC-Fix group and five patients (five fractures) in the LC-DCP group had a delayed union, but no patient in either group had a nonunion. With the numbers available, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to operative time, time to union, callus formation, pain, or functional outcome. Deep infection occurred in one patient with a closed fracture in the PC-Fix group and in one patient with an open fracture in the LC-DCP group. In addition, one refracture occurred in each group. Both refractures occurred at the site of a screw track. Conclusion: Despite the differences in the concept of fracture fixation, these two implants appear to be equally effective for the treatment of diaphyseal forearm fractures. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level I-lb (randomized controlled trial [no significant difference but narrow confidence intervals]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.jbjs.orgen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series Aen_HK
dc.titleA Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing the Limited Contact Dynamic Compression Plate with the Point Contact Fixator for Forearm Fracturesen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0301-620X&volume=85A&issue=12&spage=2343&epage=2348&date=2003&atitle=A+prospective+randomized+trial+comparing+the+limited+contact+dynamic+compression+plate+with+the+point+contact+fixator+for+forearm+fracturesen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLeung, F: klleunga@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailChow, SP: spchow@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLeung, F=rp00297en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChow, SP=rp00064en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.pmid14668503-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0345491905en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros85765en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0345491905&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume85en_HK
dc.identifier.issue12en_HK
dc.identifier.spage2343en_HK
dc.identifier.epage2348en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000187010200011-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, F=7103078631en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChow, SP=7201828376en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats