Published in:
01-10-2023 | Ankle Fracture | Original Article
Cost analysis and clinical outcomes of anatomic pre-contoured locking versus conventional plates for distal fibula ankle fractures
Authors:
Raahil Patel, Kevin McCarthy, Joseph Christensen, Bonamico Jacobs, Jordan Karsch, Andrew Sephien, Christopher Matson, Roy W. Sanders, Hassan Riaz Mir
Published in:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
|
Issue 2/2024
Login to get access
Abstract
Purpose
To analyze differences in union, complication rates and cost from surgical fixation of distal fibula fractures with fibular plating implants.
Methods
In total, 380 adult patients from 2012 to 2015 treated with 12 fibular plates from 4 different manufacturers utilized by 9 surgeons were retrospectively reviewed. They were stratified into a conventional one-third tubular fibular plate group, pre-contoured anatomic locking plate group, or a heterogeneous group including 3.5-mm reconstruction, one-third tubular locking, composite, and limited compression plates. The outcomes included failure of fixation, deep infection requiring debridement, time to union, anatomic reduction, superficial infection, hardware removal, and post-traumatic arthritis. Plate and screw costs were calculated from hospital billing records.
Results
Pre-contoured locking plates were used in older, female patients with a greater number of comorbidities. Open injuries and OTA 44B fractures were more likely to be an indication for pre-contoured plates. There was no difference noted in time to union between the different plating groups. Risk factors for deep infection requiring debridement included a history of tobacco use, open fractures, and pre-contoured locking plates relative to the conventional plating group. The pre-contoured plating group was on average $586 more expensive compared to the conventional group.
Conclusion
Pre-contoured locking plates achieved similar radiographic outcomes compared to conventional plates with an increased risk of complications and higher cost. Surgeons should consider their choice of implant based on the patient’s fracture pattern, underlying comorbidities, and risk for infection.