title: Plate osteosynthesis of fractures of the shaft of the humerus: comparison of limited contact dynamic compression plates and locking compression plates.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The aim of this retrospective study was to compare outcomes and complications of displaced fractures of the shaft of the humerus treated with limited-contact dynamic compression plates (LCDCPs) and locking compression plates (LCPs).
  
  
  METHODS
  Two hundred and twelve patients with displaced fractures of the shaft of the humerus, treated with plate osteosynthesis from January 2005 to December 2009 were reviewed. One hundred and two patients (group A) were treated with LCDCP osteosynthesis and 110 patients (group B) were treated with LCP osteosynthesis. Clinical and radiological assessments were made at monthly intervals for the first 6 months and then at 2-month intervals for the next 6 months. Primary outcome measures like operative time, duration of hospital stay, time to fracture union, union rate and secondary outcome measures (functional outcome and complications such as infection, malunion, delayed union, nonunion, implant failure and iatrogenic radial nerve palsy) were compared between both groups. The ULCA scoring system and Mayo elbow performance index (MEPI) were used to assess shoulder and elbow functions, respectively. Rodriguez-Merchan criteria were used to assess the functional outcomes of the fracture fixation.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was no significant difference found between the two groups in terms of primary outcome measures. According to Rodriguez-Merchan criteria, comparison of functional outcomes of both groups showed insignificant difference (p = 0.48). There was no significant difference found between the two groups regarding mean ULCA score (p = 0.34) and mean MEPI sore (p = 0.54). In terms of complications, no significant difference was found between the two groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study concludes that the principle of fracture fixation was more important than plate selection in fractures of the shaft of the humerus.
  
  
  METHODS
  Level 3.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences, C 1/157, Vishesh Khand, Gomti Nagar, Barabanki, 226010, Uttar Pradesh, India, ashutosh.orthopaedics@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Ashutosh Kumar
authors.initials: AK
authors.lastname: Singh
authors.forename: Nidhi
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Narsaria
authors.forename: R R
authors.initials: RR
authors.lastname: Seth
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Garg
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001860:Bone Plates; D005260:Female; D005593:Fracture Fixation, Internal / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D006810:Humeral Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011859:Radiography; D020127:Recovery of Function; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome