Similar Clinical Outcome in Locking and Conventional Plate Osteosynthesis for the Treatment of AO 44-B2 Ankle Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Biomechanical studies have proved that locking plates have better primary stability besides versatility regarding fracture pattern while reducing bone contact and bridging the gap, whereas conventional nonlocking plates (plus lag screw) depend on bone-plate compression. The clinical benefit of locking plates over nonlocking plates remains unanswered, however. Therefore, this retrospective cohort study was set up to test the hypothesis that the use of locking plates for unstable ankle fractures will result in fewer re-displacements, superior bony healing, and functional and clinical outcomes better than observed in the nonlocking cohort. METHODS: Bimalleolar ankle fractures (AO 44-B2) without syndesmotic injury treated with either a locking or a nonlocking plate were included. Groups were compared for complications, bone healing, secondary dislocation, progressions of osteoarthritis, and clinical outcome using patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: Data revealed no clinical outcome differences (Olerud-Molander Ankle Score: nonlocking 88.2 ± 14.4, locking 88.8 ± 12.3, P = .69, robust two 1-sided test for equality (RTOST): P = .03; American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score: nonlocking 91.2 ± 12.9, locking 91.8 ± 11.3, P = .96, RTOST: P = .04). Nevertheless, a significant postoperative progression of osteoarthritis was detected in both groups (P = .04). This was independent of implant (P = .16). Although difference was not significant, locking plates were preferred in older (P = .78) and sicker patients (P = .63) and in cases with severer osteoarthritis (P = .16), and were associated with a higher complication rate (P = .42) and secondary dislocation (nonlocking 9.4%, locking 18.2%; P = .42). Re-displacement, however, was not a compelling reason for revision. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows statistically significant equality of both types of implants. Contrary to our expectation, locking plates seemed to be associated with a higher risk for re-displacement. Overall, the use of either locking or nonlocking plates for unstable AO 44-B2 fractures is safe and successful despite significant progression of osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective observational cohort study.

Complications during removal of conventional versus locked compression plates: is there a difference?

BACKGROUND: Osteosynthesis plate removal is one of the most commonly performed procedures in orthopaedic surgery. Due to technological advances and the quality of increasing osteosynthesis material, more and more locked plates have been implanted over the last 20 years. The aim of this study was to determine whether the complication rate during plate removal differs between conventional and locked plates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 620 patients were included and divided into two groups based on the type of plate (locked and conventional). Technical complications during implant removal included screw breakage, destroyed screw head, implant breakage, remaining implant material, refracture, bony or soft tissue overgrowth. The following plate-associated complications were identified: osteosynthesis plate not detachable, plate bent or broken, necessity of special tools or plate loosened. Three types of screw-related complications were observed: screw not detachable, screw broken or screw dislocated. RESULTS: Overall, complications related to the plate or screws were documented in 110 of the 620 cases. These complications occurred in 48 of the 382 cases involving conventional osteosynthesis (7.7% of all removals, 12.6% of all conventional removals) and in 62 of the 238 cases involving locked plate osteosynthesis (10.0% of all removals, 26.1% of all locked plate removals). The statistical analysis showed a significantly higher implant-related complication rate with locked plates compared to the conventional plates (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hardware removal can be a complication-afflicted operation, especially cases involving locked-plate removal should only be performed if a strong indication is evident. Possible benefits of the procedure should be considered carefully, taking the cost-benefit ratio into account.

Biomechanical evaluation of novel ultrasound-activated bioresorbable pins for the treatment of osteochondral fractures compared to established methods.

BACKGROUND: Osteochondral injuries often lead to osteoarthritis of the affected joint. All established systems for refixation of osteochondral defects show certain disadvantages. To address the problem of reduced stability in resorbable implants, ultrasound-activated pins were developed. By ultrasound-activated melting of the tip of these implants, a more secure anchoring is assumed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The aim of the study was to investigate if ultrasound-activated pins can provide secure fixation of osteochondral fragments compared to screws and conventional resorbable pins. In a biomechanical laboratory setting, osteochondral fragments of the medial femoral condyle of sheep were refixated with ultrasound-activated pins [US fused poly(L-lactide-co-D,L-lactide) (PLDLLA) pins], polydioxanone (PDA) pins and conventional titanium screws. Anchoring forces of the different fixation methods were examined, registered and compared concerning shear force and tensile force. RESULTS: Concerning the pull out test, the US fused PLDLLA pins and titanium screws (~122 N and ~203 N) showed comparable good results, while the PDA pins showed significantly lower anchoring forces (~18 N). Examination of shear forces showed a significantly higher anchoring of the screws (~248 N) than the US fused PLDLLA pins (~218 N). Nevertheless, the US fused PLDLLA pins could significantly outperform the PDA pins (~68 N) concerning shear forces. CONCLUSION: The US fused PLDLLA pins demonstrated a comparable anchorage to the fixation with screws, but were free from the disadvantages of metal implants, i.e. the need for implant removal. The PDA pin application showed inferior biomechanical properties.

Osteosynthesis-screw augmentation by ultrasound-activated biopolymer--an ovine in vivo study assessing biocompatibility and bone-to-implant contact.

OBJECTIVES: Screw fixation and fragment anchoring in osteoporotic bones is often difficult. Problems like the cut out phenomenon and implant migration in osteoporotic bones have been reported. One possibility of improving the anchoring force of screws is augmentation of the screw. Cement-augmented screws in spinal surgery could exhibit a better anchoring in osteoporotic bones. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of screw augmentation using a resorbable polymer. Ultrasound-activated biodegradable pins were used for the purpose of a resorbable augmentation technique. Cannulated screws were inserted into the femur of 12 sheep and augmented by an ultrasound-activated polylactic acid (PLDLA) pin. In a paired approach, four screws were implanted in each animal: 2× a 10-mm thread and 2× a 20-mm thread, both of which were augmented with polymer. Both screws, named A and B, were also applied without augmentation (control group) and implanted into the contralateral hind limb. After 4, 8, and 12 weeks, the sheep were euthanized and a macroscopical and histological examination followed. RESULTS: The polymer spread well out of the screws into the cancellous lacunae. Around the polymer, the peripheral bone showed signs of healthy and active bone tissue. No evidence of inflammation or infection was observed. The boneto-implant contact was significantly higher in the augmented screws. Biocompatibility was proven in histopathological examination. After 12 weeks, no pathological changes were found. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-activated polymer augmentation of cannulated screws may improve the anchoring in osteoporotic bone. ARTICLE FOCUS: Can screw augmentation using a resorbable polymer improve the bone-to-implant contact in case of screw osteosynthesis? Is there any effect on the surrounding tissue by the induced temperature and liquefied polymer? Can biocompatibility be proven by this new osteosynthesis? KEY MESSAGES: Screw augmentation by ultrasound-activated biopolymer leads to a significant higher bone-to-implant contact than pure screw osteosynthesis. No tissue damage could be observed by the application of the SonicFusion™. STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: The ovine in vivo study concept can simulate physiological conditions. First examination of screw augmentation by ultrasound-activated biopolymer. No biomechanical testing of the higher bone-to-implant contact by now.