Study of role of limited contact dynamic compression plates versus locking plates in long bone fracture management


  • Nikhil Singh Department of Orthopaedics, DY Patil Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
  • Sanjay Kumar Barik Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Latur, Maharashtra, India
  • Divya Maniyar Department of Orthopaedics, Terna Medical College, Navi Mumbai Maharashtra, India



Limited contact dynamic compression plates, Locking plates, Long bone fracture, Union time, Functional outcome, DASH score


Background: Present study was conducted to assess the functional, radiological, clinical factors associated with long bone fractures stabilized with limited contact dynamic compression plating (LC-DCP) and locking plates.

Methods: In this retrospective observational study conducted over 2 years, 60 osteoporotic patients undergoing surgery for diaphyseal fractures of long bones at the study centre were studied. Two groups were formed on the basis of usage of LC-DCP plate or the locking plate in fracture management. Participants were thoroughly evaluated clinically. Radiographic assessments included evaluation of callus formation and fracture fragments after the functional load. Functional outcome was assessed based on the range of movements and the ability to carry out daily activities. Disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score was also calculated. Post-operative follow-ups were conducted at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 1 year.

Results: Radius or ulna were the commonest site of fracture with more than half (35, 58.33%) patients affected with 93.3% having middle 1/3rd diaphysis fracture. There were no significant differences between the genders for site or location of fractures. DASH scores were comparable in both groups. The mean union time was significantly higher among females (9.76±2 weeks) than males (8.59±1.21 weeks). Most patients took 14-16 weeks to achieve the functional outcome, with LC-DCP observed to provide faster functional recovery.

Conclusions: Radius or ulna fractures are the commonest amongst long bone fractures, with middle 1/3rd diaphysis being the commonest site of affection. LC-DCP facilitates slighty faster fracture union and functional recovery than locking plates, with union time being significantly longer in females.


Amin S, Achenbach SJ, Atkinson EJ, Khosla S, Melton III LJ. Trends in fracture incidence: a population‐based study over 20 years. J Bone Mineral Res. 2014;29(3):581-9.

Meling T, Harboe K, Søreide K. Incidence of traumatic long-bone fractures requiring in-hospital management: a prospective age-and gender-specific analysis of 4890 fractures. Injury. 2009;40(11):1212-9.

Gardner MJ, Brophy RH, Campbell D, Mahajan A, Wright TM, Helfet DL, et al. The mechanical behavior of locking compression plates compared with dynamic compression plates in a cadaver radius model. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(9):597-603.

Xiong Y, Zhao Y, Wang Z, Du Q, Chen W, Wang A. Comparison of a new minimum contact locking plate and the limited contact dynamic compression plate in an osteoporotic fracture model. Int Orthop. 2009;33(5):1415.

Azboy İ, Demirtas A, Uçar BY, Bulut M, Alemdar C, Özkul E. Effectiveness of locking versus dynamic compression plates for diaphyseal forearm fractures. Orthopedics. 2013;36(7):e917-22.

Davis C, Stall A, Knutsen E, Whitney A, Becker E, Hsieh AH, O'Toole RV. Locking plates in osteoporosis: a biomechanical cadaveric study of diaphyseal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(4):216-21.

Cooper C, Barker DJ, Hall AJ. Evaluation of the Singh index and femoral calcar width as epidemiological methods for measuring bone mass in the femoral neck. Clin Radiol. 1986;37(2):123-5.

The DASH outcome measure: Disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand. Available at http://www.dash. Accessed on 19 July 2019.

Sharma S, Dang H, Sharma V, Sharma S. Treatment of diaphyseal forearm bone fractures by Locking compression Plate (LCP). Int J Orthop Surgery. 2009;11(1):1-5.

Leung F, Chow SP. A prospective, randomized trial comparing the limited contact dynamic compression plate with the point contact fixator for forearm fractures. JBJS. 2003;85(12):2343-8.

Leung F, Chow SP. Locking compression plate in the treatment of forearm fractures: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg. 2006;14(3):291-4.

Meena RK, Chishti SN, Singh AM, Singh AK, Singh PI, Debbarma S. A prospective study comparing locking compression plate with limited contact dynamic compression plate for the treatment of adult diaphyseal both bone forearm fractures. IOSR-JDMS. 2013;3(6):38-43.

Plecko M, Kraus A. Internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using the locking proximal humerus plate. Operat Orthop Traumatol. 2005;17(1):25-50.

Ahmad MA, Sivaraman A, Zia A, Rai A, Patel AD. Percutaneous locking plates for fractures of the distal tibia: our experience and a review of the literature. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(2):E81-7.

Saikia KC, Bhuyan SK, Bhattacharya TD, Borgohain M, Jitesh P, Ahmed F. Internal fixation of fractures of both bones forearm: Comparison of locked compression and limited contact dynamic compression plate. Indian J Orthop. 2011;45(5):417.

Reddy BJ, Abhishek L, Kathyayini R. Comparative Study Of Forearm Fractures Treated With Locking Compression Plate Limited Contact Dynamic Compression Plate. J Evol Med Dental Sci. 2015;4(12):2001-10.






Original Research Articles