الفهرس 
Exclusion CriteriaOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 25 |  |  |
| | | from | 25 | | |
Abstract
Background: Ankle fractures are one of the most common fractures affecting both the young and old. They are the third most common fracture in elderly patients. The appropriate method of fixation of those fracture is debatable especially osteoporotic patients, osteoporosis renders commonly used internal fixation methods technically demanding and prone to failure.
Aim of the Work to compare distal fibula locked plate to non-locked plate for treatment of Danis Weber Type B fracture regarding union rate, union time, operation time, failure rate and other complications.
Patients & Methods: This study was conducted on 100 patients classified as a Weber B traumatic fracture. Fifty patients were undergoing ORIF using locking plates (group A) and patients were underwent ORIF using non-locking plates (group B). The following parameters were assessed in both groups range of motion, union rate, union time, complications, operation time, AOFAS and failure rate.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in operation time, union time and blood loss. Length of hospital stays (days) and Time to full weight bearing were lower in group A than group B. AOFAS was higher in group A than in group B. There was no statistically significant difference in flexion plus extension (sagittal motion) between both groups. The rate of loosening of distal screw and implant removal were higher in group B than in group A.
Conclusion: NO statistically significant difference found between both groups regarding functional, radiological outcomes and complications in patients ≤ 60 years old. Therefore, one third plate is more preferred in young age in terms of cost-effectiveness. While in patients over 60 years old, using the locking plates yields better stability, functional and radiological outcome than non-locking plates.