Comparison of the Effectiveness of Simple Plate Fixation and Plate Combined with Local Fixation of Broken Ends in the Treatment of Oblique Fracture of Midshaft Clavicle
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of performing simple plate fixation with that using a plate combined with fracture end fixation to investigate the necessity of fracture end fixation outside the plate in cases of oblique fracture of the middle clavicle. Methods This was a retrospective fol...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | Orthopaedic Surgery |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13310 |
| Summary: | Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of performing simple plate fixation with that using a plate combined with fracture end fixation to investigate the necessity of fracture end fixation outside the plate in cases of oblique fracture of the middle clavicle. Methods This was a retrospective follow‐up study of patients with middle clavicle oblique fractures (Robinson types 2A1 and 2A2) between 2015 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups according to their treatment options: the simple plate fixation (SPF) group (n = 79; 43 men and 36 women; average age, 46.37 ± 14.54 years) and the plate combined with fracture local fixation (PLFP) group (n = 81; 36 men and 45 women; average age, 48.42 ± 12.55 years). Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative fracture healing time, postoperative shoulder function score (Constant–Murley and disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand [DASH] scores), clinical complications, and postoperative subjective satisfaction were compared between the two groups. Results One hundred sixty patients with a sufficient follow‐up period were included in the final analysis: 79 in the SPF group (follow‐up time: 16.24 ± 3.94 months) and 81 in the PLFP group (follow‐up time: 16.15 ± 3.43 months). Age, sex, body mass index, follow‐up duration, fracture classification, and cause of injury were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in blood loss, Constant–Murley and DASH scores, follow‐up period, and postoperative subjective satisfaction between the two groups (P > 0.05). The fracture healing time was shorter in the PLFP group than in the SPF group (4.41 ± 0.99 vs. 4.87 ± 1.60 months, P < 0.05), but the operation duration was longer in the PLFP group than in the SPF group (65.48 ± 16.48 min, P < 0.05). There were seven (complication rate, 8.86%) and five (complication rate, 6.17%) cases that had complications in the SPF and PLFP groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the complication rates between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion Although the healing time was shorter in the PLFP group than in the SPF group, the clinical efficiency of the two methods in the treatment of oblique fracture of the middle clavicle was similar. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1757-7853 1757-7861 |