Abstract
BACKGROUND: The exact benefit of locking plates over nonlocking plates in patients with lateral malleolus fractures remains unclear. The primary aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome of locking plates vs nonlocking plates in patients with a lateral malleolus fracture. The secondary aims were to compare the number of complications and hardware removals and to compare whether results differed for older patients and for patients treated with anatomical locking plates. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies comparing locking plates with nonlocking plates in patients with fixated lateral malleolus fractures. All included studies were assessed on their methodologic quality using the MINORS. Subgroup analyses were performed on older patients and patients treated with anatomical locking plates. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed that functional outcome did not differ between patients treated with locking plates and nonlocking plates (MD 2.38, 95% CI -2.71 to 7.46). No difference in both complication rate (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74-1.63) and the amount of hardware removals (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.52-1.14) was found. Even after analyzing older patients and patients treated with anatomical locking plates, no benefit was shown. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates no clear benefit in selecting locking plates over nonlocking plates in the treatment of lateral malleolus fractures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Locking plates are increasingly being used in the treatment of lateral malleolus fractures. Biomechanical studies have shown an increased stability with use of locking vs nonlocking plates. This clinical review does not support a benefit of use of locking plates for these fractures.