DCP vs LCDCP in forearm fractures: a comparative study of functional outcomes


  • Aaron R. D’souza Department of Orthopaedics, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
  • Vamsi M. Krishna Department of Orthopaedics, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
  • Kaushik S. Eswaran Department of Orthopaedics, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
  • Shailesh Kumar Department of Orthopaedics, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India




Forearm fractures, DCP, LC DCP, functional outcome


Background: Forearm fractures in general, and diaphyseal fractures in specific, are one of the most common fractures which accounts for about 31% of upper limb fractures seen in emergency. Early reduction and fixation is necessary in order to restore the function of forearm so as to be able to carry out their daily activities. The objective of this study was to compare the functional outcomes of forearm fractures fixed with DCP and LC DCP.

Methods: The present study was a hospital based study, and a prospective, comparative study. A total of 40 patients with fracture of both bones forearm were taken up for the study, and randomly divided into 2 groups of 20 patients each. They were followed up for a period of 1 year.

Results: The majority of patients were males (31 males and 9 females), involving age group 21-30. The left side was more common than right in both groups. The site of fracture was middle one-third of forearm in both groups (60% in group A and 65% in group B). The time for union was on average 4 weeks for LC DCP and DCP. ROM was full in 85% in DCP group and 90% in LC DCP group. Overall results were comparable in both groups. Excellent in 34 cases (18 in LC DCP, 16 in DCP), satisfactory in 5 cases (2 in LC DCP, 3 in DCP) and unsatisfactory in one case treated with DCP.

Conclusions: LC DCP provides slightly better functional outcome in terms of time taken for union, early mobilisation and range of motion. However, it is more expensive than DCP.




Perren SM, Klaue K, Pohler O, Predieri M, Steinemann S, Gautier E. The limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP), Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1990;109:304-10.

Reddy PA, Reddy CD. A prospective comparative study of internal fixation of diaphyseal forearm fractures with LCP and DCP in above 50 year age group. Int J Res Orthop. 2018;4:395-9.

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

Stern PJ, Drury WJ. Complications of plate fixation of forearm fractures. Clin Orthop. 1983;175:25-9.

Muller ME, Allogower M, Schneider R, Willenegger H. Manual of internal fixation techniques recommended by AO group. 3rd ed. New York: Springer–Verlag Berlin, 1990.

Nasab SAM, Sarrafan N, Atri H, Aliabadi G. Outcome of forearm shaft fractures in adults treated by open reduction and internal fixation with DCP. Pak J Med Sci. 2012;28(1):45-8.

Angadi V, Patil AB, Nagnur R, Palled GS. The efficacy of dynamic compression plate versus locking compression plate with regards to fracture fixation, implant fixation and bone reaction Int J Orthop Sci. 2016;2(3):85-7.

Ravi KB, Mathew TA, Madhusudan H. A randomized controlled study of dynamic compression plate (DCP) versus limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) in treatment of forearm bone fractures in adults (age 18-60 years). Int J Orthop Sci. 2017;3(3):765-73.






Original Research Articles