Clinical analysis using proximal femoral locking plate in the management of complex, comminuted pertrochanteric femoral fractures in adults: a prospective study


  • Ansari Muqtadeer Abdul Aziz Associate Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
  • Rahul Gopikishan Jaju Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India
  • Milind Lokhande Resident Doctor, Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India



Pertrochanteric region, Proximal femoral locking plate, Valgus, Non-union, Load-bearing


Background: Pertrochanteric fractures consume major part of orthopaedic injuries with high morbidity and cost factors. They affect almost all age groups. The treatment options vary a lot depending on the type of fracture and age. Despite marked improvement in implant design, surgical technique and patient care; pertrochanteric fractures continue to consume a substantial proportion of our health care resources.

Methods: This prospective study consists of 20 adult patients of pertrochanteric fractures of femur, who were treated with internal fixation using PFLP. All patients were followed up at an interval of 4 to 6 weeks till fracture union and then once in 3 months till 1 year.

Results: Anatomical results are noted as good or poor depending upon shortening, varus deformity, hip movements and knee movements and functional result as excellent, good, fair and poor depending upon the hip pain, ambulatory status, ability to squat, and sit cross leg. In the study 2 patients had shortening of l cm. None of the patients had any varus deformity. Overall excellent to good results were achieved in 85% cases.

Conclusions: The potential advantages of the proximal femoral locking plate over intramedullary devices are better biomechanical design, ability to bear more stress due to, strong biomechanical stability shows that this technique holds considerable promise in complex, comminuted fractures in revision cases and in osteoporosis.


Hasenboehler EA, Agudelo JF, Morgan SJ, Smith WR, Hak DJ, Stahel PF. Treatment of complex proximal femoral fractures with the proximal femur locking compression plate. Orthopedics. 2007;30(8):618–23.

Zha GC, Chen ZL, Qi XB, Sun JY. Treatment of pertrochanteric fractures with a proximal femur locking compression plate. Injury. 2011;42(11):1294–9.

Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ. Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(8):488–93.

Grawe B, Le T, Williamson S, Archdeacon A, Zardiackas L. Fracture fixation with two locking screws versus three non-locking screws: A biomechanical comparison in a normal and an osteoporotic bone model. Bone Joint Res. 2012;1(6):118–24.

Xu R-h, Huo W-l, Wu H, Chen M. Treatment of trochanteric fractures with proximal femoral locking plates. J Clin Orthop. 2011;1:37.

Streubel P.N, Moustoukas M.J, Obremskey W.T. Mechanical failure after locking plate fixation of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures. J. Orthop. Trauma. 2013;27(1):22–8.

Saini P, Kumar R, Shekhawat V, Joshi N, Bansal M, Kumar S. Biological fixation of comminuted subtrochanteric fractures with proximal femur locking compression plate. Injury. 2013;44(2):226–31.

Craig N.J, Maffulli N. Subtrochanteric fractures: Current management options. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(18-19):1181–90.

Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM, Christie J. Hip fractures in adults younger than 50 years of age. Epidemiology and results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;(312):238–46.

Crist BD, Khalafi A, Hazelwood SJ, Lee MA. A biomechanical comparison of locked plate fixation with percutaneous insertion capability versus the angled blade plate in a subtrochanteric fracture gap model. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23(9):622–7.

Latifi MH, Ganthel K, Rukmanikanthan S, Mansor A, Kamarul T, Bilgen M. Prospects of implant with locking plate in fixation of subtrochanteric fracture: experimental demonstration of its potential benefits on synthetic femur model with supportive hierarchical nonlinear hyperelastic finite element analysis. Biomed Eng Online. 2012;11:23.

Brett C, Lee M, Khalafi A, Hazelwood S, editors. A comparison of percutaneous versus traditional open plate fixation in a subtrochanteric fracture gap model.; Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), 2006.

Streubel PN, Moustoukas MJ, Obremskey WT. Mechanical failure after locking plate fixation of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures. J. Orthop. Trauma. 2013;27(1):22–8.

Wirtz C, Abbassi F, Evangelopoulos DS, Kohl S, Siebenrock KA, Krüger A. High failure rate of trochanteric fracture osteosynthesis with proximal femoral locking compression plate. Injury. 2013;44(6):751–6.

Johnson B, Stevenson J, Chamma R, Patel A, Rhee S-J, Lever C, et al. Short-term follow-up of pertrochanteric fractures treated using the proximal femoral locking plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(5):283–7.

Gunadham U, Jampa J, Suntornsup S, Leewiriyaphun B. The outcome in early cases of treatment of subtrochanteric fractures with proximal femur locking compression plate. Malays. Orthop J. 2014;8(2):22–8.

Glassner PJ, Tejwani NC. Failure of proximal femoral locking compression plate: A case series. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(2):76–83.

Khairuddin M, Chun YS. Treatment of unstable peritrochanteric femoral fractures using a 95 degrees angled blade plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:687–92.

Wieser K, Babst R. Fixation failure of the LCP proximal femoral plate 4.5/5.0 in patients with missing posteromedial support in unstable per-, inter-, and subtrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130:1281–7.






Original Research Articles