Thirty-three peer-reviewed studies met the inclusion criteria for the Overview. Criteria were framed by three key questions regarding indications for the use of locking plates, their effectiveness in comparison with traditional nonlocking plates, and their cost-effectiveness. The studies were divided into seven applications: distal radius, proximal humerus, distal femur, periprosthetic femur, tibial plateau (AOJOTA type C), proximal tibia (AOJOTA type A or C), and distal tibia. Patient enrollment criteria were recorded to determine indications for use of locking plates, but the published studies do not consistently report the same enrollment criteria. Regarding effectiveness, there were no statistically significant differences between locking plates and nonlocking plates for patient-oriented outcomes, adverse events, or complications. The literature search did not identify any peer-reviewed studies that address the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of locking plates.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||8|
|Journal||Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons|
|State||Published - Jul 2009|