Introduction
Methods
Search | Set of keywords | Set of keywords | |
---|---|---|---|
S1 | Carbon fiber OR Carbon fibre | AND | Implant* OR material* OR biomaterial* OR polymer* OR composite* |
S2 | Carbon fiber-reinforced OR Carbon fibre-reinforced | AND | Implant* OR material* OR biomaterial* OR polymer* OR composite* |
S3 | PEEK | AND | Implant* OR material* OR biomaterial* OR polymer* OR composite* |
S4 | Carbon fiber OR Carbon fibre | AND | Orthop* |
S5 | PEEK | AND | Orthop* |
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
-
Study designs: Any comparative study design was eligible. This included randomised controlled studies, prospective cohort studies, case control studies, and retrospective cohort studies. Excluded study designs included case reports, reviews, editorials, commentaries, personal opinions, surveys and retrospective case series.
-
Population: The population included in the review were adults with an upper or lower extremity fracture who had surgical fixation with carbon fiber-reinforced plates.
-
Intervention/Comparators: The intervention was surgical fixation of upper or lower extremity fractures with plate and screws and studies which compared outcomes of CFR plates with conventional plates were included.
-
Outcomes: Outcomes included clinical outcomes (scores), radiographic outcomes, union (rates and/or time to union), and complications.
Data extraction and data analysis
-
Characteristics of studies: study design, level of evidence, year, country, setting, number of patients.
-
Characteristics of included population: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities.
-
Side of fracture (left or right / dominant or non-dominant).
-
Types of fractures and classification used.
-
Outcomes examined and compared including clinical outcomes (scores), radiographic outcomes, range of motion (ROM), union (rates and/or time to union), and complications.
-
Follow-up: duration and loss to follow-up.
Assessment of methodological quality of studies and quality of evidence
Results
Findings of database searches
Characteristics of included studies
Lead author (year) | Study design Level evidence Country | Groups/implants/company | Sample size (n) | Gender | Age (years) | Side | Patient characteristics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Proximal humerus | |||||||
Ziegler (2019) [19] | RCT Level I Germany | Group 1 PEEK Power Humeral Fracture Plate (Arthrex, Naples, Florida, USA) Group 2 Proximal Humerus Internal Locking System—PHILOS (Depuy Synthes, West Chester, PA, USA) | 63 | Overall 13M: 50F Group 1 6M: 26F Group 2 7M: 24F | Group 1 Mean: 61.8 Range: 49.4–74.2 Group 2 Mean: 60.9 Range: 48.5–73.3 | Overall 32D:31ND Group 1 15D:14ND Group 2 17D:17ND | NSD: gender, age, BMI, ASA |
Padolino (2018) [25] | Retrospective cohort Level III Italy | Group 1 Diphos H CFR-PEEK plate (Lima Corporate, Italy) Group 2 Proximal Humerus Internal Locking System—PHILOS (DePuy Synthes, Umkirch, Germany) | 42 | Overall 16M: 26F Group 1 9M: 12F Group 2 7M: 14F | Group 1 Mean: 57.4 Range: 41.0–78.0 Group 2 Mean: 55.8 Range: 22.0–78.0 | Overall 39D:3ND Group 1 19D:2ND Group 2 20D:1ND | NSD: gender, age, BMI |
Katthagen (2017) [22] | Prospective cohort Level II Germany | Group 1 PEEK Power Humeral Fracture Plate (Arthrex, Naples, Florida, USA) Group 2 Proximal Humerus Internal Locking System—PHILOS (DePuy Synthes, Umkirch, Germany) | 42 | Overall 14M: 28F Group 1 7M: 14F Group 2 7M: 14F | Group 1 Mean: 66.8 Range: 56.9–76.7 Group 2 Mean: 67.4 Range: 57.7–77.1 | Overall 25D:17ND Group 1 12D:9ND Group 2 13D:8ND | NSD: gender, age |
Schliemann (2015) [26] | Retrospective cohort Level III Germany | Group 1 Diphos H CFR-PEEK plate (Lima Corporate, Italy) Group 2 Proximal Humerus Internal Locking System—PHILOS (DePuy Synthes, Umkirch, Germany) | 53 | NE | N/E | NR | NR |
Distal radius | |||||||
Guzzini (2018) [21] | Prospective cohort Level II Italy | “Piccolo” Distal Radius Plate (CarboFix® Orthopaedics Ltd, Israel) | 22 | Overall 8M: 14F Group 1 8M: 14F Group 2 8M: 14F (contralateral) | Group 1 Mean: 50.8 Range Group 2 Mean: 50.8 SD: 10.34 | NR | NSD: gender, age |
Perugia (2017) [18] | RCT Level I Italy | Group 1 CarboFix CFR-PEEK distal radius volar locking plate (CarboFix® Orthopaedics Ltd, Israel) Group 2 Acu-Lock Volar Distal Radius Plate (Acumed Ltd., USA) | 30 | Overall 9M: 21F Group 1 5M: 10F Group 2 4M: 11F | Group 1 Mean: 56.8 Range: 32.0–71.0 Group 2 Mean: 52.6 Range: 35.0–64.0 | Overall 10D:20ND Group 1 4D:11ND Group 2 6D:9ND | NSD: gender, age |
Distal femur | |||||||
Byun (2020) [23] | Retrospective cohort Level III USA | Group 1 CarboFix CFR-PEEK distal femur locking plate (CarboFix® Orthopaedics Ltd, Israel) Group 2 VA-LCP Curved Condylar Plate (DePuy Synthes, Paoli, PA) | 30 | Overall 16M: 14F Group 1 6M: 3F Group 2 10M: 11F | Group 1 Mean: 49.8 Range: 23.0–80.0 Group 2 Mean: 54.9 Range: 18.0–89.0 | NR | NSD: gender, age, BMI, smoking, diabetes |
Mitchell (2018) [24] | Retrospective cohort Level III USA | Group 1 CarboFix CFR-PEEK distal femur locking plate (CarboFix® Orthopaedics Ltd, Israel) Group 2 VA-LCP Curved Condylar Plate (DePuy Synthes, Paoli, PA) | 22 | Overall 6M: 16F Group 1 3M: 8F Group 2 3M: 8F | Group 1 Mean: 71.7 Range: 51.0–89.0 Group 2 Mean: 57.3 Range: 27.0–86.0 | NR | NSD: gender, smoking, PVD SSD: age, diabetes |
Ankle | |||||||
Guzzini (2017) [20] | Prospective cohort Level II Italy | Group 1 CFR-PEEK ankle radiolucent plate (not stated) Group 2 Stainless steel ankle plate (not stated) | 87 | Overall 25M: 62F Group 1 14M: 32F Group 2 11M: 30F | Group 1 Mean: 56.8 Range: 54.46–59.14 Group 2 Mean: 58.3 Range: 59.14–61.85 | NR | NSD (calculated): gender, age |
Methodological quality of studies and quality of evidence
Lead author (year) | Sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants | Incomplete outcome data | Selective outcome reporting | Other source of bias | Total risk of bias |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ziegler (2019) [19] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear |
Perugia (2017) [18] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low |
Lead Author (year) | Representativeness of cohort | Selection of non-exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that outcome was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts | Assessment of outcome | Follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | NOS score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Guzzini (2018) [21] | Truly representative* | Drawn from same community as the exposed cohort* | Secure record* | Yes* | Study controls for type of plate used* Study controls for gender, age* | Independent blind assessment* | Yes* | Complete follow up for all subject accounted for* | 9 stars |
Guzzini (2017) [20] | Truly representative* | Drawn from same community as the exposed cohort* | Secure record* | Yes* | Study controls for type of plate used* Study controls for gender, age* | Record linkage* | Yes* | Complete follow up for all subject accounted for* | 9 stars |
Katthagen (2017) [22] | Somewhat representative | Drawn from same community as the exposed cohort* | Secure record* | Yes* | Study controls for type of plate used* Study controls for gender, age* | Record linkage* | No | Subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias (< 20% lost)* | 7 stars |
Criteria | Byun [23] | Mitchell [24] | Padolino [25] | Schliemann [26] |
---|---|---|---|---|
A clearly stated aim | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Inclusion of consecutive patients | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Prospective collection of data | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Endpoints appropriate to the aim of study | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of study | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Loss to follow-up < 5% | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Prospective calculation of the study size | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Adequate control group | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Contemporary group | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Baseline equivalence of groups | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Adequate statistical analysis | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Total | 18 | 19 | 20 | 18 |
Outcomes examined per anatomic area
Proximal humerus fractures
Lead author (year) | Comparison groups | Type of fractures (Neer) [13] | Clinical outcomes (Scores) | ROM | Radiographic outcomes | Union | Complications | Follow-up (months)/loss to follow-up |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ziegler (2019) [19] | Group 1 (n = 32) CFR-PEEK group Group 2 (n = 31) Control group | 2-part Group 1: 6 Group 2: 5 NSD 3-part Group 1: 22 Group 2: 13 p = 0.03 4-part Group 1: 4 Group 2: 13 p = 0.008 | DASH score Group 1: 27.5 ± 20.5 Group 2: 28.5 ± 17.9 Oxford score Group 1: 37.7 ± 8.8 Group 2: 38.6 ± 6.8 SST Group 1: 62.5 ± 22.3 Group 2: 65 ± 20.1 | NR | Neck-shaft angle Group 1: 142.53° ± 6.45° Group 2: 138.81° ± 8.21° | Group 1 32/32–100% Group 2 31/31–100% | Malunion: 0 Screw perforation: 0 Loss of fixation: 0 Displacement: 0 AVN: 0 Implant failure: 0 Revision surgery: 0 Infection: 0 (both groups) | Clinical: 6 No loss Radiological: 3 Group 1: 28/31 Group 2: 23/31 |
Padolino (2018) [25] | Group 1 (n = 21): CFR-PEEK group Group 2 (n = 21): Control group | 3-part: Group 1: 14 Group 2: 17 NSD 4-part: Group 1: 7 Group 2: 4 NSD | Constant score Group 1: 66.3 ± 20.5 Group 2: 63.3 ± 19.6 SST Group 1: 7 ± 2.25 Group 2: 7 ± 2.16 | Active AE (NSD) Group 1: 142.8° Group 2: 127.6° Active LE (NSD) Group 1: 134.1° Group 2: 113.8° Ext. rotation (NSD) Group 1: 32.6° Group 2: 36.6° Int. rotation (NSD) Group 1: 2.8° Group 2: 2.4° | Group 1: 21/21–100% Group 2: 21/21–100% | Malunion Group 1: 2/21 (9.5%) Group 2: 2/21 (9.5%) Screw perforation: Group 1: 2/21 (9.5%) Group 2: 3/21 (14%) AVN Group 1: 1/21 (4.8%) Group 2: 1/21 (4.8%) Revision surgery- Group 1: 1/21 (4.8%) Group 2: 1/21 (4.8%) | Clinical/ Radiological Group 1: Mean: 30.7 Range: 24–54 Group 2: Mean: 52.7 Range: 29–77 No loss | |
Katthagen (2017) [22] | Group 1 (n = 21): CFR-PEEK group Group 2 (n = 21): Control group | 2-part: Group 1: 2 Group 2: 2 NSD 3-part: Group 1: 9 Group 2: 12 NSD 4-part: Group 1: 10 Group 2: 7 NSD | Constant score Group 1: 73.8 ± 15.4 Group 2: 69.4 ± 18.5 p = 0.43 SSV: Group 1: 0.74 VAS pain: Group 1: 0.1 ± 0.4 | Abduction Group 1: 124.3° ± 42° Group 2: NR | Neck-shaft angle: Group 1: 129.6° ± 8.7° Group 2: NR | Group 1: 17/17–100% Group 2: NR | Malunion: 0 (both groups) Screw perforation: (NSD) Group 1: 0/17 Group 2: 5/19 (26%) Loss of fixation: (NSD) Group 1: 0/17 Group 2: 3/19 (16%) Displacement Group 1: 0 Group 2: NR AVN: Group 1: 0 Group 2: NR Implant failure Group 1: 0 Group 2: NR Revision surgery: (NSD) Group 1: 4/21 (19%) Group 2: 5/21 (24%) | Clinical: 12 Group 1: 20/21 Group 2: 19/21 Radiological: Mean: 3.2 Range: 1.5–5 Group 1: 17/21 |
Schliemann (2015) [26] | Group 1 (n = 23): CFR-PEEK group Group 2 (n = 30) Control group (historical) | 3-part 4-part | Constant score (NSD) Age/Gender adjusted Group 1: 71.3 (44–97) Group 2: 59.2 (28–86) DASH score (NSD) Group 1: 27.5 (7–48) Group 2: 28.5 (10.6–46.4) Oxford score (NSD) Group 1: 27.4 (8–45) Group 2: 21.6 (9–43) SST Group 1: 59 Group 2: 48 | Abduction Group 1: 145° (120°–150°) Group 2: NR Active AE Group 1: 170° (150°–180°) Group 2: NR | Neck-shaft angle: Group 1: 139° (129°–146°) | Group 1: 100% Group 2: 100% | Malunion: (NSD) Group 1: 4/23 (14%) Group 2: 7/30 (23%) Screw perforation: 0 (both groups) Loss of fixation: 0 (both groups) Displacement 0 (both groups) AVN: (NSD) Group 1: 1/23 (4%) Group 2: 3/30 (10%) Implant failure 0 for both groups Revision surgery: (NSD) Group 1: 7/23 (30%) Group 2: 8/30 (27%) | Clinical: 24 Group 1: 23/29 Radiological: 6 Group 1: 29/29 |
Distal radius fractures
Lead author (year) | Comparison groups | Type of fractures (ΑΟ classification) | Clinical outcomes | ROM | Radiographic outcomes | Union | Complications | Follow-up (months)/loss to follow-up |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Guzzini (2018) [21] | Group 1 (n = 22): CFR-PEEK group Group 2 (n = 22): Control group | NR | QuickDASH Group 1: 9.3 (2.5–15.9) Hand Grip Group 1: 92.3% Mean: 19.5 kg Group 2: NSD Key pinch Group 1: 90.4% Mean: 8.1 kg Group 2: NSD Return to ADL Group 1: mean 4.2 weeks VAS Group 1: 2.3 (0–3.5) | Extension Group 1: 65° (54°–76°) Group 2: NSD Flexion Group 1: 70° (72°–80°) Group 2: NSD Supination Group 1: 87° (82–90) Group 2: NSD Pronation Group 1: mean 80° Group 2: NSD | Normal radial height Group 1: 70.6% (6.8–7.3 mm) Normal radial inclination Group 1: 78.5% (15–27.5°) Normal volar tilt Group 1: 93.2% (3–187°) Ulnar variance Group 1: 89.5% (0.7–4.1 mm) Articular step-off Group 1: 18% | Group 1: 22/22–100% | None | Clinical/radiological Mean: 15.7 Range: 12–19 |
Perugia (2017) [18] | Group 1 (n = 15): CFR-PEEK group Group 2 (n = 15): Control group | B1 Group 1: 2 Group 2: 1 NSD B2 Group 1: 1 Group 2: 0 NSD B3 Group 1: 3 Group 2: 1 NSD C1 Group 1: 5 Group 2: 4 NSD C2 Group 1: 1 Group 2: 3 NSD C3 Group 1: 3 Group 2: 6 NSD | DASH (NSD) Group 1: 15.3 (2.5–58.9) Group 2: 12.2 (10.6–54.8) Hand grip (NSD) Group 1: 92.3% Mean: 19.5 kg Group 2: 94.4% Mean: 22.4 kg Key pinch (NSD) Group 1: 90.4% Mean: 8.1 kg Group 2: 90.7% Mean: 8.4 kg Return to ADL (NSD) Group 1: mean 4.2 weeks Group 2: mean 3.8 weeks VAS (NSD) Group 1: mean 3.6 (0–7) Group 2: mean 2.9 (0–6) | Extension (NSD) Group 1: 64° (44°–76°) Group 2: 61° (42°–75°) Flexion (NSD) Group 1: 78° (59°–80°) Group 2: 80° (62°–80°) Supination (NSD) Group 1: 87° (72°–90°) Group 2: 88° (70°–90°) Pronation (NSD) Group 1: 80° Group 2: 77° | Normal radial height Group 1: 66.6% (6.8–17.3 mm) Group 2: 70% (6.3–18.2 mm) Normal radial inclination Group 1: 75% (15–27.5°) Group 2: 73% (14–29°) Normal volar tilt Group 1: 90.2% (3–187°) Group 2: 91.3% (5–185°) Ulnar variance Group 1: 86.3% (0.7–4.1 mm) Group 2:85.8% (0.5–4.8 mm) Articular step-off Group 1: 35.3% Group 2: 37% NSD for all values | Not reported | None | Clinical/ Radiological Group 1: Mean: 15.7 Range: 12–19 No loss to f/u Group 2: Mean: 16.1 Range: 13–21 No loss |
Distal femur fractures
Lead author (year) | Comparison groups | Type of fractures (OTA compendium classification)x | Union | Non-union | Mean time to FWB | Complications | Follow-up (months)/loss to follow-up |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Byun (2020) [23] | Group 1 (n = 10): CFR-PEEK group Group 2 (n = 21): Control group | Type C Group 1: 7 Group 2: 14 (p = 0.972) Periprosthetic Group 1:2 Group 2: 5 (p > 0.05) Open Group 1: 4 Group 2: 9 (p = 0.597) Closed Group 1: 6 Group 2: 12 (p > 0.05) | mRUST score Group 1: 11.4 ± 2.6 (7.7–16) Group 2: 10.5 ± 2.5 (6.0–15.7) (p = 0.374) | Group 1: 0/10 Group 2: 3/21 (14%) | NR | Hardware failure 0 in both groups Reoperation Group 1: 0/10 Group 2: 3/21 Change in alignment Group 1: 1/10 (10%) Group 2: 1/21 (4.8%) (p = 0.548) | Clinical/radiological 6 months No loss |
Mitchell (2018) [24] | Group 1 (n = 11): CFR-PEEK group Group 2 (n = 11): Control group | Type C Group 1: 4 Group 2: 5 (p = 0.68) | mRUST score N/R Mean time to radiographic union Group 1: 18.8 weeks Group 2: 12.4 weeks (p = 0.14) | Group 1: 1/11 (9%) Group 2: 4/11 (36%) (p = 0.12) | Group 1: 9.8 Group 2: 11.7 (p = 0.12) | Hardware failure Group 1: 0/11 Group 2: 2/11 (p = 0.14) Reoperation Group 1: 1/11 (9%) Group 2: 4/11 (36%) (p = 0.08) Change in alignment NR | Clinical/ Radiological Group 1: Mean: 12.25 Range: 2.5–15 No loss Group 2: Mean: 11.5 Range: 2.5–30.5 No loss (p = 0.82) |
Ankle fractures
Lead author (year) | Comparison groups | Clinical outcomes | Radiographic outcomes | Time to union | Removal of metalwork | Follow-up (months)/Loss to follow-up |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Guzzini (2017) [20] | Group 1 (n = 46): CFR-PEEK group Group 2 (n = 41): Control group | OMAS Group 1: 91.1 ± 4.16 Range: 86–95.26 Group 2: 88.7 ± 4.7 Range 84–93.4 NSD AOFAS Group 1: 92.1 ± 4.16 Range 87.94–96.26 Group 2: 90.1 ± 4.7 Range 85.4–94.7 NSD VAS Group 1: 1.4 ± 1.1 Range 0.3–2.5 Group 2: 1.5 ± 0.7 Range 0.8–2.2 NSD | Talocrural angle Group 1: 9.3 ± 0.9° Range 8.4–10.2° Group 2: 10.4 ± 0.8° Range 9.6–11.2° NSD Restoration of joint line Group 1: 45/46 Group 2: 39/41 NSD | NSD between 2 groups | Group 1: 3/46 (6.5%) Group 2: 4/41 (9.8%) NSD | Clinical/radiological Mean: 14 ± 2 Range: 6–24 No loss |
Discussion
Lead Author (year) | Implants/company/country | Sample size (n) | Gender | Age (years) | Type of fractures | Follow-up (months)/loss to follow-up | Union/time to union | Outcomes/complications |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Proximal humerus | ||||||||
Rotini (2015) [4] | Diphos H CFR-PEEK plate/Lima Corporate/Italy | 160 | 41 M:119F | Mean:64 Range: 23–84 | Neer (13) 2-part: 55 3-part: 76 4-part: 29 | Minimum f/u: 24 Lost to f/u: 12% | Union: 158/160 (99%) Time: NR | Outcomes: Mean Constant Score: 76 Mean DASH Score: 28 Abduction: 129° ± 25° Active AE: 137° ± 28° Ext. rotation: 48° ± 19° Int. rotation: 56° ± 26° Complications: Plate breakage (intraoperatively): 3/160 (2%) (1st generation plates) Screw perforation: 8/160 (5%) Loss of fixation: 5/160 (3%) Fragment displacement: 2/160 (1.3%) AVN: 13/160 (8%) Implant failure: 5/160 (3%) Revision surgery: 41/160 (25.6%) |
Distal radius | ||||||||
Tarallo (2020) [34] | Volar fixed angle plate DiPHOS-RM/Lima Corporate/Italy | 110 | 33M:77F | Mean:56.8 Range: 23–84 | AO: A3 (14). B3 (33), C1 (18), C2 (30), C3 (15) | Mean: 48 Range: 14–81 Lost to f/u: 9% | NR | Outcomes: Not reported (only analyzed adverse events) Complications: Intraop plate ruptures: 4/110 (3.6%) (revised with new PEEK plate) FPL rupture: 1 Revision surgery: 4/110 (3.6%) 1 for post-op plate rupture 2 for extensor irritation 1 for infection |
Allemann (2019) [29] | 2.7 mm CF/PEEK plate/Inc. Icotec, Altstätten/Switzerland | 10 | 6M:4F | Mean: 53.3 ± 16.6 | AO All type B fractures | Minimum f/u: 12 Loss to f/u: NR | Union: 10/10 (100%) Time: NR | Outcomes: Wrist ROM: significant increase Return to ADLs without limitations: 10/10 (100%) Complications: Intraop breakage of screws: 2 (20%) |
Di Maggio (2017) [8] | Piccolo Composite™ CFR-PEEK radiolucent volar plate/Unimedical Biomedical Technologies/Italy | 64 | 38M:26F | Mean: 56.8 Range: 23–84 | AO: B1 (6), B2 (13), B3 (15), C1 (10), C2 (7), C3 (10) | Minimum f/u: 12 Lost to f/u: 9.8% | Union: 64/64 (100%) Time to union: 6 weeks | Outcomes: Modified Mayo wrist Score: 90.54 (range 75–100; 95% CI: 88.4–92.6) Return to ADLs without limitations: 64/64 (100%) Complications: Plate removal: 1/64 (1.6%) (aseptic loosening of screw) |
Tarallo (2014) [6] | Volar fixed angle plate DiPHOS-RM/ Lima Corporate/Italy | 40 | 16M:24F | Mean: 65 Range: 26–82 | AO: B1 (2), B2 (6), C1 (21), C2 (9), C3 (2) | Minimum f/u: 12 Loss to f/u: NR | Union: 40/40 (100%) Time: NR | Outcomes: Mean DASH: 6 (3–16) Grip strength: 92% of contralateral Return to ADLs without limitations: 40/40 (100%) Extension: 55°(40°–65°) Flexion: 65°(45°–80°) Supination: 75°(65°–90°) Pronation: 79° (60°–90°) Complications: Plate removal: 1 (2.5%) (flexor tenosynovitis—technical error) |
Distal femur | ||||||||
Baker (2004) [30] | Distal femur carbon plate OrthoDesign/OrthoDynamics, UK | 12 | NR | Mean: 78 Range: 57–94 | NR | NR | 11/12 (85%) Time to union: 4 months (3–6) | Outcomes: Return to pre-injury level of mobility: 11/12 (92%) Complications: Νon-union: 1/12 (8%) (revised with long stem prosthesis) |
Al-Shawi (2002) [28] | NR/UK | 5 | 5F | Mean: 74.8 Range: 69–83 | NR | Mean: 30 Range: 18–42 | Union: 5/5 (100%) Time to union: 5 weeks–5 months (mean) | Outcomes: No residual pain Complications: Malunion: 1 (clinically not significant) |
Pemberton (1994) [32] | Distal femur carbon plate OrthoDesign/OrthoDynamics/ UK | 19 | 19F | Mean: 80 Range: 66–92 | AO A2 (9), A3 (8), C2 (2) | Minimum f/u: 12 Loss to f/u: NR | 17/19 (89%) Time to union 2–5 months | Outcomes: Return to pre-injury level of mobility and independence: 17/17 Complications: Shortening (1–1.5 cm): 2/19 (10.5%) Union in 10° varus: 1/19 (5%) < 90° flexion: 2/19 (10.5%) |
Ankle | ||||||||
Pinter (2018) [33] | Piccolo CompositeTM Distal Fibula Plate/ Carbofix Orthopedic Ltd/Israel | 30 | 12M:18F | Mean: 46.8 Range: 18–79 | Weber B (27) Weber C (3) | Mean: 20 Range: 12–27 Lost to f/u: 20% | 23/24 (96%) | Outcomes: No outcome scores reported Complications: Failure of syndesmosis fixation: 1/30 (3%) Infection: 1/30 (3%) |
Caforio (2014) [31] | Piccolo CompositeTM Distal Fibula Plate/Carbofix Orthopedic Ltd/Israel | 27 | 14M:13F | Mean: 57.3 Range: 19–78 | Monomalleolar: 4 Bimalleolar: 12 Trimalleolar: 11 | Minimum f/u: 3 Loss to f/u: NR | NR | Outcomes: Full recovery of ROM: 26/27 (96%) No pain (at 2 months): 26/27 (96%) Complications: Plate removal: 2 (7%) Skin discoloration: 1 (3.7%) Reduced ROM: 1 (3.7%) |