Locking versus non-locking neutralization plates for treatment of lateral malleolar fractures: a randomized controlled trial

Purpose

The reduction of periosteal compression through the use of a locking plate may minimize disturbances of bone blood supply and may improve the rate of bone union. A single-centre, assessor blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the clinical effectiveness of a locking plate and a non-locking plate.

Methods

A total of 52 patients with AO/OTA 44B lateral malleolar fractures were included in this study. All patients underwent surgical fixation using a lag screw and neutralization plate. An identical treatment protocol was used in all patients, with exception of plate selection. The rate of radiographic bone union, defined as the complete disappearance of fracture lines confirmed through anteroposterior, lateral, and internal oblique views was compared at three, six, and 12 months following surgery. In addition, the Medical Outcomes 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) score, the time required for resolution of tenderness at the fracture site and the complication rate were evaluated.

Results

Twenty-three patients were randomly assigned to undergo fixation using a locking plate, and 29 patients were assigned to undergo fixation using a non-locking plate. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the radiographic bone union rate of fibula, SF-36 score, the time for resolution of tenderness at the fracture site and complication rates.

Conclusion

No differences were observed in patients with AO/OTA 44B lateral malleolar fractures undergoing fixation with a locking versus non-locking neutralization plate.