Mechanical Failure After Locking Plate Fixation of Unstable Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures

Abstract

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Proximal femoral nails compared with reverse distal femoral locking plates in intertrochanteric fractures with a compromised lateral wall; a randomised controlled trial

“…In contrast to this the PFLCP act as angular stable devices and provide rigid fixation. But they are associated with a higher number of varus collapse and implant failure [13,14]. To overcome this problem the reverse-DFLCP of the contralateral side has been advocated by some authors, as it provides an added number of screw options for proximal femoral fracture fragment, resulting in a more stable construct [15][16][17].…”

“…Due to higher failure rates of proximal femoral locking compression plate [13,14], some authors advocated the use of reverse distal femoral locking compression plate (reverse-DFLCP) of the contralateral side for intertrochanteric fractures, as it provided an added number of screw options for proximal femoral fracture fragments, thus resulting in a more stable construct with higher pull out resistance [15][16][17]. Clinical studies have also showed good results of reverse-DFLCP when compared to intramedullary devices [15][16][17].…”

“…Pre contoured locking plates were introduced in the last decade as angular stable devices to provide rigid fixation of communited proximal femur fractures [13]. Due to higher failure rates of proximal femoral locking compression plate [13,14], some authors advocated the use of reverse distal femoral locking compression plate (reverse-DFLCP) of the contralateral side for intertrochanteric fractures, as it provided an added number of screw options for proximal femoral fracture fragments, thus resulting in a more stable construct with higher pull out resistance [15][16][17].…”

A comparison of proximal femoral locking plate versus 95-degree angled blade plate in the treatment of reverse intertrochanteric fractures

“…The mean follow-up in the PFLP group was 24 months (range 18-30) and 28 months (range [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] in the ABP group. The mean time to union was 17 weeks (range [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] in the PFLP group ( Figure 1) and 18 weeks (range 16-32) in the ABP group (Figure 2).…”

Subtrochanteric Fractures: Comparison of Proximal Femur Locking Plate and Intramedullary Locking Nail Fixation Outcome

“…The high rate of mechanical failure of the fixation of unstable proximal femoral fractures with proximal locking plate is expected [6]. Also, tilting of rotational order following the intramedullary nail is a fundamental problem [7].…”