The Efficiency of Locking Compression Plates versus Dynamic Compression Plates in the Treatment of Low Distal Fibula Fracture: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Uncertainties remain as to which type of plate [locking compression plate (LCP) or dynamic compression plate (DCP)] is more efficient and cost-effective in fixing and stabilizing the fractures. We aimed to compare the clinical utility of the two types of plates including LCPs and 3.5-mm DCPs in the treatment of low distal fibula fracture (distal lateral malleolus fractures). Methods: This randomized single-blinded clinical trial was performed on 54 patients with distal fibula fractures who were candidates for surgical treatment using compression plate fixation. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups scheduled for treatment with fixation of LCPs or with 3.5-mm T-plates (DCPs). The patients were finally followed-up for two years to assess the clinical outcome of the procedures. Results: No difference was revealed between the two groups in the prevalence of postoperative infection, nonunion, wound dehiscence, skin reactions, and local surgical pain. The mean functional score [Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS)] in the DCP and LCP groups was 85.33 ± 4.92 and 84.85 ± 5.12, respectively, indicating no difference between the groups (P = 0.726). Conclusion: In the treatment of low distal fibula fractures, the use of LCPs and 3.5mm DCPs can similarly result in improving functional status with minimal postoperative complications. Due to the similarity of the consequences of using both plates and the fact that the DCP type is more cost-effective and available in remote and deprived areas, this type seems to be preferred.