Fractures of the forearm bones may result in severe loss of function unless adequately treated. Severe loss of function may result even though adequate healing of the fracture occurs 1, 4. Fractures of the forearm present a unique management problem for years. A forearm fracture involving both bones requires open anatomical reduction with stable fixation. 2, 3 various treatment modalities were introduced from time to time and each of them had some edge over the previous one. The forearm represents the critical anatomic unit of upper limb, permitting the effector organ of the upper limb, the hand, to perform multiaxial daily activities of living. Historically, the closed management of forearm fractures has been met with frustration in adults and resulted in poor functional outcome, hence perfect fracture reduction and rigid fixation is mandatory and achieved by plating. 3, 5, 7 The number of forearm fractures is increasing faster than the predicted rate due to increasing number of road traffic accidents, increased incidence of violence, rapid industrialization, and various sports activities. Conservative treatment has resulted in malunion, non-union, synostosis and ultimately poor functional outcome 4, 6, 7. compression techniques have a lower incidence of non-union and are found to hasten rehabilitation, with less joint stiffness.the various modalities of plating have developed each has edge over the other. there are very less studies on indian population this study has taken up to analyse the outcome between two most commonly used plates in forearm shaft fracture treatment i.e DCP (dynamic compression plate) and LCP (locking compression plate).
Aims and Objectives of The Study: 1) To study and compare the functional and radiological outcome after surgical intervention by using and open reduction and internal fixation with dynamic compression plating vs locking compression plate in the treatment of closed diaphyseal fractures of forearm.
2) To study and compare the complications associated with these two modalities of the treatment.
Materials And Methods: About 60 patients with both bone forearm fractures treated with LCP or DCP in RLJ hospital attached to Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College between maech 2013 to june 2017, will be taken up for the study after obtaining the informed consent. This is a retrospective study with follow up period of 6 months minimum. The functional outcome was assesed according to Anderson scoring system which included evaluation of the movements and the radiological union.
Conclusions: Statistically, both LCP and DCP have similar outcomes in the treatment of diaphyseal fractures of both bones forearm. Whereas, LCP group had a faster recovery as compared to DCP group. Thus, we conclude that both LCP and DCP have similar results for the diaphyseal fractures.