Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23(02): 149
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-09-10-0105
Letters to the Editor
Schattauer GmbH

Comparison of 3.5 locking compression plate fixation to 3.5 limited contact dynamic compression plate fixation

Hans van der Zee
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 11 October 2009

Accepted: 01 November 2009

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

 

 

  • References

  • 1 Filipowicz D, Lanz O, McLaughlin R. et al. A bio-mechanical comparison of 3.5 locking compression plate fixation to 3.5 limited contact dynamic compression plate fixation in a canine cadaveric distal humeral metaphyseal gap model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 270-277.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bartels K.. Nonunion. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1987; 17: 799-809.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Wagner. General principles for the clinical use of LCP. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Sup 31-42.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Burnstein AH, Wright TM.. Fundamentals of Orthopaedic Biomechanics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1994: 110-112.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Aguila AZ, Manos JM, Orlansky AS. et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of limited contact dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 220-226.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Gardner MJ, Brophy RH, Campbell D.. The mechanical behavior of locking compression plates compared with dynamic compression plates in a cadaver radius model. J Orthop Trauma 2005; 19: 597-603.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Fulkerson E, Kenneth AE, Kubiak EN. et al. Fixation of diaphyseal fractures with a segmental defect: A biomechanical comparison of locked and conventional plating techniques. J Trauma 2006; 60: 830-835.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Korner J, Diederichs G, Arzdorf M. et al. A bio-mechanical evaluation of methods of distal humerus fracture fixation using locking compression plates versus conventional reconstruction plates. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18: 286-293.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 de Tora M, Kraus K.. Mechanical testing of 3.5 mm locking and non-locking bone plates. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 318-322.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Sod GA, Mitchell CF, Hubert JD. et al. In vitro bio-mechanical comparison of locking compression plate fixation and limited-contact dynamic compression plate fixation of osteotomized equine third metacarpal bones. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 283-288.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Stoffel K, Dieter U, Stachowiak G.. Biomechanical testing of the LCP –how can stability in locked internal fixators be controlled?. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Sup 11-19.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar