Review Question - QID 1031

Conventional plating provides stable internal fixation when fractures are anatomically reduced. Stability of this type of fixation relies on the plate/bone interface and the friction that develops between this interface. Locked plates rely on the plate/screw interface, and each provides not only axial stability but also angular stability; each screw acts as a fixed angle device. Indications for locked plating for indirect reduction include: 1. metaphyseal/diaphyseal fractures 2. comminuted diaphyseal fractures 3. comminuted metaphyseal fractures. 4. short segment fixation. Locked plates are not indicated for displaced articular fractures unless anatomic rigid fixation of the articular surface is done first (locking technology cannot reduce fractures/lag segments together).

The referenced article by Gardner et al reviews locking technology and reminds us that compression technology using non-locking screws and plates is still needed for many fractures and is even required for proper treatment of some fractures.

The referenced article by Wagner is an instructional paper on how to use hybrid plating technology and reviews concepts such as the necessity of lag screw fixation before locking.

The referenced study by Egol et al is a review paper that notes that locked plates and conventional plates rely on completely different mechanical principles to provide fracture fixation and in so doing they provide different biological environments for healing. They report that locked plates are indicated for: indirect fracture reduction, diaphyseal/metaphyseal fractures in osteoporotic bone, and with bridging severely comminuted fractures.