Objective: To compare the outcomes of dynamic compression plate (DCP) fixation and flexible intramedullarynailing (IMN) in the treatment of pediatric diaphyseal femur fractures, specifically in terms of fracturehealing time, complication rates, reoperation rates, and functional recovery.Material & Methods: This retrospective comparative study was conducted at Services Hospital, Lahore,Pakistan, from January 2022 to December 2024. A total of 121 pediatric patients who underwent eitherdynamic compression plate (DCP) fixation or flexible intramedullary nailing (IMN) for diaphyseal femurfractures were included. Data were collected on fracture characteristics, healing time, complicationsincluding infection, nonunion, malunion, and hardware-related issues, as well as functional recovery andreoperation rates.Results: The IMN group had a significantly shorter healing time (8.2±3.1 weeks vs. 10.6±2.5 weeks, p =0.03). Functional recovery was better in the IMN group, with a higher PFLES score (95.3±4.2 vs. 91.2±5.1,p=0.02) and lower VAS pain score (1.2±1.1 vs. 1.7±1.3, p=0.04) at 12 months. The reoperation rate washigher in the IMN group (8.8% vs. 3.1%, p=0.04), primarily due to hardware-related complications, while thecomplication rates (infection, nonunion, malunion) were similar between the two groups (infection: DCP7.8%, IMN 3.5%; nonunion: DCP 1.6%, IMN 3.5%; malunion: DCP 1.6%, IMN 5.3%).Conclusion: IMN provided faster healing and better functional recovery, while DCP offered more stablefixation with fewer reoperations, particularly in complex fractures. The choice of fixation method should beindividualized based on fracture type and patient characteristics.Keywords: Pediatric, Diaphyseal femur fracture, Dynamic compression plate, Flexible intramedullarynailing, Healing time, Reoperation rateHow to cite: Aziz A, Afgan S, Qammar B, Asghar J, Hamid A, Aslam A. Dynamic Compression Plate Versus FlexibleIntramedullary Nailing in Pediatric Diaphyseal Femur Fractures: A Retrospective Comparative Study. Esculapio -JSIMS 2026;22(01):107-112.DOI: 10.51273/esculap.v22i01.1532