Comparative analysis of locking plate as an external fixator vs. conventional external fixation in the treatment of meta diaphyseal tibia fractures

Introduction: Research has shown promising results for using locking plates as external fixators in treating tibial fractures. However, external locking plate fixation remains an uncommon practice. This study aims to evaluate the stability of external locking plate fixators compared to traditional external fixators for metadiaphyseal tibia fractures. Aim: The study compares the functional outcomes of locking plate external fixators versus conventional external fixation in treating metadiaphyseal tibia fractures with compromised soft tissue condition. Materials and Methods: A prospective study was conducted at Krishna Hospital, Karad, selecting 20 patients with metadiaphyseal tibia fractures compromised soft tissue condition. 10 patients received locking plate external fixators, while the remaining 10 received conventional external fixation. Variables such as age, gender, re-operation rates, complications, functional recovery, and cost analyses were evaluated for each group. Results: The study found significant variations in clinical outcomes, complications, and cost consequences between the two groups. The locking plate external fixator group had lesser time to union and high union rate, lower re-operation rates, less complications, better functional scores at final follow up and lower estimated costs compared to the conventional external fixator group. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that Locking Plate External Fixator (LPEF) is a superior treatment option for metadiaphyseal tibia fractures with compromised soft tissue condition, offering a higher union rate, faster time to union, lower infection rate, lower reoperation rate compared to Conventional External Fixator (CEF).