Objective To investigate the differences in clinical efficacy between locking compression plate fixation and conventional plate-screw fixation in the treatment of limb fractures. Methods Patients with limb fractures admitted to Shahe Hospital of Changping District, Beijing between January 2022 and June 2025 were prospectively enrolled as research subjects. The patients were divided into the control group and the trial group at a 1∶1 ratio using the random-number table method. The control group was treated with conventional plate-screw internal fixation, while the trial group received locking compression plate fixation. A difference-in-differences model was constructed to analyze the effect of locking compression plate treatment on patients’ fracture score indicators. Logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of different treatment methods on curative effect. Results A total of 120 patients were included, with 60 cases in each group. At 6 months and 12 months after treatment, the limb swelling score and Visual Analogue Scale score of the trial group were lower than those of the control group, while the Radiographic Union Scale for Tibia score was higher than that of the control group (P<0.05). The results of difference-in-differences model analysis showed that the treatment plan was significantly correlated with the improvement of fracture score indicators (P<0.05). The fracture healing time of the trial group was shorter than that of the control group, and the postoperative complications were fewer than those of the control group (P<0.05). The comparison of clinical efficacy showed that the clinical efficacy of the trial group was better than that of the control group (P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that the trial group could improve the total clinical effective rate. Subgroup analysis showed that the impact of different treatment methods on patients’ clinical efficacy was more significant in the subgroups of age ≥55 years and sedentary work (P<0.05). Conclusions Locking compression plate achieves favorable clinical efficacy in the treatment of limb fractures. It can effectively relieve postoperative pain and limb swelling, promote fracture healing, shorten healing time, and reduce the incidence of postoperative complications. Compared with conventional plate-screw internal fixation, it has obvious advantages in improving functional recovery and overall efficacy without significantly increasing medical costs, and possesses good value for popularization and application in clinical practice.
Objective To investigate the effect of removing the implanted plate-rod system for scol iosis (PRSS) on maintaining scol iosis curve correction and preserving spinal mobil ity in patients with scol iosis. Methods From June 1998 to February 2002, 119 cases of scol iosis were treated with the implant of PRSS, which was removed 26-68 months later (average46.8 months). Complete follow-up data were obtained in 21 patients, including 6 males and 15 females aged 11-17 years old (average 13.8 years old). The disease course was 9-16 years (average 12.1 years). There were 2 cases of congenital scol iosis and 19 cases of idiopathic scol iosis, which included 5 cases of IA, 2 of IB, 1 of IIA, 2 of IIB, 2 of IIC, 2 of IIIA, 3 of IIIB, and 2 of IVA according to Lenke classification. There were 13 cases of thoracic scol iosis and 8 of thoracolumbar scol iosis. AP view and the lateral and anterior bending view of X-ray films before and at 3 to 6 months after removing PRSS were comparatively analyzed, the coronal and the sagittal Cobb angle were measured, and the height of vertebral body on the concave side and the convex side were measured, so as to know the effect of PRSS on the growth of the vertebral endplates. Results All the implants were removed successfully with an average operation time of 2.5 hours (range 2-4 hours) and a small amount of intraoperative blood loss. Twenty-one cases were followed up for 6-72 months (average 34.4 months). The coronal Cobb angle before and after the removal of PRSS was (20.25 ± 8.25)° and (23.63 ± 8.41)°, respectively, indicating there was no significant difference (P gt; 0.05); while the sagittal Cobb angle was (39.44 ± 12.38)° and (49.94 ± 10.42)°, respectively, indicating there was a significant difference (P lt; 0.05). The height of the top vertebral body on the concave side before and after the removal of PRSS was (1.78 ± 0.40) cm and (2.08 ± 0.35) cm, respectively, and there was a significant difference (P lt; 0.01); while the height on the convex side was (2.16 ± 0.47) cm and (2.18 ± 0.35) cm, respectively, indicating no significant difference was evident (P gt; 0.05). All the 21 patients had good prognosis and no major operative compl ication occurred. Conclusion PRSS is an effective instrumentation for the management of scol iosis. After the removal of the PRSS, the correction of scol iosis can be maintained, and the spinal mobil ity can be protected and restored.