Clinical comparison of double-plate fixation by the perpendicular plate method versus parallel plate method for
Hiroki Yokoyama1, Yasuhiko Takegami2, Katsuhiro Tokutake3
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan.
Introduction:
Double-plating methods are popular, with perpendicular and parallel plate methods being widely used surgical method for the rigid fixation of distal humeral fracture (DHF). However, which plate method is better for DHF remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes including the incidences of complications and reoperation between the two plate methods.
Methods:
We extracted 383 patients with DHF undergoing surgery between 2011 and 2020 from our multicenter database, which is named TRON. We divided the subjects into two groups: perpendicular plating group (Group A) and parallel plating group (Group B). To adjust for baseline differences between the groups, patients were matched for age, sex, olecranon osteotomy, AO type, and type of injury. We assessed the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) at 3 and 6 months and the last follow-up month as the clinical outcome. We investigated the incidences of complications and reoperations in both groups.
Results:
After matching, each group comprised 50 patients. There was no significant difference between Group A versus Group B in MEPS score at each time point. The incidence of implant removal in Group B was higher than that in Group A (26.5% vs 50%, p = 0.023).
Discussion:
Although there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes or complications between the two groups, the incidence of implant removal was higher in Group B than in Group A. In the parallel plate technique, where the plates have to be placed in areas with thin subcutaneous soft tissue, the incidence of implant removal might be high due to the discomfort caused by the implant.
