Outcome comparison of XXXX treated through dorsal plate fixation versus screw fixation.

@entity1 @entity130
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective study was to test whether the treatment of @entity130 with open reduction and dorsal plate fixation would have the same or better functional outcomes as treatment with standard trans-articular screw fixation. METHODS: Sixty @entity1 with primarily isolated @entity130 were treated by open reduction and dorsal plate fixation or standard screw fixation. The @entity1 were followed on average for 31 months. Evaluation was performed with @entity1 ' chief complaint, clinical examination, radiography, and AOFAS Midfoot Scale. RESULTS: Thirty two @entity1 were treated with open reduction and dorsal plate fixation, and twenty eight @entity1 were treated with open reduction and screw fixation. After two years follow-up, the mean AOFAS Midfoot score was 83.1 points in the dorsal plate fixation group and 78.5 points in the screw fixation group (p<0.01). Of the dorsal plate fixation group, radiographic analysis revealed anatomic reduction in twenty-nine @entity1 (90.6%, 29/32) and nonanatomic reduction in three @entity1 . Of the screw fixation group, radiographic analysis revealed anatomic reduction in twenty-three @entity1 and nonanatomic reduction in five @entity1 (82.1%, 23/28). CONCLUSIONS: Open reduction and dorsal plate fixation for a dislocated @entity130 do have better short and median term outcome and a lower reoperation rate than standard screw ORIF. In our experience, we recommend using dorsal plate in ORIF on dislocated @entity130 . Level of Evidence II, Prospective Comparative Study.
