S.H. Palmer et al. / Injury, Int. J. Care Injured 31 (2000) 187±191
191
Whilst providing a sound mechanical purchase on
References
the metaphyseal fragment the `footprint' of the plate
remains small. Obtaining an adequate ®xation with
multiple screws necessarily enlarges the contact area of
a plate and the underlying area of periosteal com-
pression further damages the blood supply to the
already compromised bone.
[1] Muller ME, Allgower M, Schneider R, Willenegger H. Manual
of internal ®xation: techniques recommended by the AO-ASIF
group, 3rd ed. Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991 [5].
[2] Bosworth DN. Blade plate ®xation: technique suitable for frac-
tures of the surgical neck of humerus and similar lesions.
JAMA 1949;141:1111±3.
[3] Sehr JR, Szabo RM. Semitubular blade plate for ®xation in the
proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 1988;2(4):327±32.
[4] Moda SK, Chadha NS, Sangwan SS, et al. Open reduction and
®xation of proximal humeral fractures and fracture-dislocations.
J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1990;72±73:1050±2.
The only complication in this study was impinge-
ment of the plate in a shoulder in one patient. This is
a common complication in the ®xation of proximal
humeral fractures (15% in one series [12]). In our
patient, it occurred partly because the entry point for
the plate was too superior, but also because the DCP
used to obtain the required solid ®xation was quite
bulky. If possible, a thinner plate should be used in
these fractures (such as a one-third tubular plate) but
the reduced strength of the ®xation construct should
be recognised [3].
[5] Jupiter JB, Mullaji AB. Blade plate ®xation of proximal hum-
eral nonunions. Injury 1994;25:301±3.
[6] Weber BG. Operative treatment for recurrent dislocation of the
shoulder. Injury 1969;1:107±8.
[7] Weber BG, Simpson LA, Hardegger F. Rotational humeral
osteotomy for recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder as-
sociated with a large Hill%Sachs lesion. J Bone Joint Surg
1984;6A:1443±9.
[8] Benirschke SK, Henley MB, Patterson BM, et al. Use of custom
contoured 3.5 and 4.5 mm blade plates to salvage periarticular
fractures of the tibia (abstract). American Academy of
6. Conclusion
Orthopaedic Surgeons 1993 Annual Meeting
Program: paper 433.
Ð Scienti®c
[9] Tencer AF, Johnson KD. General biomechanical principals of
some common fracture ®xation devices. In: Biomechanics in
orthopaedic trauma: bone fracture and ®xation. London:
Martin Dunitz, 1994. p. 131.
The customised interlocked blade plate is an alterna-
tive for the ®xation of metaphyseal fractures or non-
union in patients with poor bone stock. The quality of
®xation is improved and the soft tissues are respected
thereby allowing early mobilisation with fracture heal-
ing made more likely. The authors acknowledge that
this modi®cation to the DCP plate is not recognised
by the manufacturers and the acuity of the plate bend
must substantially weaken it for normal purposes. To
date implant failure as a result of this has not
occurred.
[10] Simonian PT, Thompson GJ, Emley W, et al. Angulated screw
placement in the lateral condylar buttress plate for supracondy-
lar femoral fractures. Injury 1998;29:101±4.
[11] Firoozbakhsh KK, Decoster TA, Moneim MS. Eect on cycli-
cal loading on the holding power of surgical screws.
Orthopedics 1994;17(7):607±11.
[12] Paavolainen P, Bjorkenheim J M JM, Slatis P, Paukku P.
Operative treatment of severe proximal humeral fractures. Acta
Orthop Scand 1983;54:374±9.