Midshaft clavicle fractures: is anterior plating an acceptable alternative to superior plating?

Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study of Nonoperative Versus Operative Treatment for High-Energy Midshaft Clavicle Fractures

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate if nonoperative or operative treatment of displaced clavicle fractures delivers reduced rates of nonunion and improved Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores.

METHODS

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective, observational.

SETTING

Seven Level 1 Trauma Centers in the United States.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

Adults with closed, displaced (100% displacement/shortened >1.5 cm) midshaft clavicle fractures (Orthopaedic Trauma Association 15.2) were treated nonoperatively, with plates and screw fixation, or with intramedullary fixation from 2003 to 2018.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

DASH scores (2, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months), reoperation, and nonunion were compared between the nonoperative, plate fixation, and intramedullary fixation groups.

RESULTS

Four hundred twelve patients were enrolled, with 203 undergoing plate fixation, 26 receiving intramedullary fixation, and 183 treated nonoperatively. The average age of the nonoperative group was 40.1 (range 18-79) years versus 35.8 (range 18-74) in the plate group and 39.3 (range 19-56) in the intramedullary fixation group (P = 0.06). One hundred forty (76.5%) patients in the nonoperative group were male compared with 154 (75.9%) in the plate group and 18 (69.2%) in the intramedullary fixation group (P = 0.69). All groups showed similar DASH scores at 2 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months (P > 0.05). Plate fixation demonstrated better DASH scores (median = 20.8) than nonoperative (median = 28.3) at 6 weeks (P = 0.04). Intramedullary fixation had poorer DASH scores at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months than plate fixation and worse DASH scores than nonoperative at 6 months (P < 0.05). The nonunion rate for nonoperative treatment (14.6%) was significantly higher than the plate group (0%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Operative treatment of displaced clavicle fractures provided lower rates of nonunion than nonoperative treatment. Except at 6 weeks, no difference was observed in DASH scores between plate fixation and nonoperative treatment. Intramedullary fixation resulted in worse DASH scores than plate fixation at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months and worse DASH scores than nonoperative at 6 months. Implant removal was the leading reason for reoperation in the plate and intramedullary fixation groups, whereas surgery for nonunion was the primary reason for surgery in the nonoperative group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does plate position influence the outcome in midshaft clavicular fractures? A multicenter analysis

PURPOSE

To date, it remains unclear whether superior or anterior plating is the best option for treating midshaft clavicular fractures. The aim of this study was to compare both techniques with regard to the incidence of implant removal due to implant irritation, risk of complications, time to union, and function.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, all midshaft clavicular fractures treated operatively between 2017 and 2020 in two hospitals in Switzerland were analyzed. The participating hospitals differed with regard to their standard practice; one offered superior plating only, while the other predominantly employed an anterior plate. The primary outcome was the incidence of implant removal for irritation. Secondary outcomes were time to union, complications, re-interventions, and range of motion during the follow-up period of at least 6 months.

RESULTS

In total, 168 patients were included in the study of which 81 (48%) received anterior plating and 87 (52%) superior plating. The overall mean age was 45 years (SD 16). There was no significant difference between anterior and superior plating with regard to implant removal (58.5% versus 57.1%, p = 0.887), infection (5.7% versus 1.8%, p = 0.071), and time to union (median 48 weeks versus 52 weeks, p = 0.643). Data on range of motion were available in 71 patients. There was no significant difference in anteflexion (median 180 degrees anterior versus 180 degrees superior) and abduction (median 180 degrees anterior versus 180 degrees superior) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective cohort study did not find sufficient evidence to recommend one implant position over the other for midshaft clavicular fractures with regard to removal due to irritation. Time to union was similar and Infections were equally rare in both groups. Notably, a considerable number of patients in both groups had their implants removed due to irritation. Larger prospective studies are needed to determine how much plate position contributes to the occurrence of irritation and whether other patient or implant-related factors might play a role. Until this is clarified, implant position should be based on surgeons preference and experience.

Comparable results of superior vs antero-inferior plating for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. A comparative study

BACKGROUND

Clavicle fractures represent up to 10 % of all fractures, affecting mainly a young population. Open reduction and internal plate fixation provide good results, but evidence on the best plate positioning is still unclear. Aim of this retrospective study was to compare superior and antero-inferior plating positioning in the surgical treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

104 patients aged > 18 years, treated surgically with plate fixation (51 superior, 53 antero-inferior) for a midshaft clavicle fracture from January 2010 to April 2021 were included. At the time of the visit, mean follow-up time was 6.6 ± 2.6 years. Shoulder function was evaluated with the use of Constant-Murley Score (CMS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score. Return to sport, aesthetic satisfaction, operative time, radiological outcomes, rate of implant removal, and overall patient satisfaction were documented as well.

RESULTS

Mean CMS was 94.1 ± 10.0 points in the superior plating group and 93.4 ± 11.6 points in the antero-inferior plating group. DASH score: 4.6 ± 11.0 superior, 5.1 ± 10.5 antero-inferior. Return to sport: 8.2 ± 2.9 superior, 8.2 ± 3.0 antero-inferior. Aesthetic satisfaction: 8.9 ± 1.6 superior, 8.8 ± 2.1 antero-inferior. Overall satisfaction: 9.1 ± 1.5 superior, 8.9 ± 1.7 antero-inferior. The comparison between groups showed no statistically significant differences (p = n.s.) for all outcome measures. Operative time: 101.6 ± 27.3 min superior, 113.0 ± 31.6 min antero-inferior (p = 0.05). Radiological follow-up documented one non-union and one mal-union in the antero-inferior plating group. Overall, 63 patients underwent plate removal: 58.8 % in the superior plating group and 62.3 % in the antero-inferior plating group (p = n.s.). Main reason for plate removal was pain/discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

Both superior and antero-inferior plating provided excellent clinical, functional, and radiological results for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures, without significant differences between groups. The superior plating group showed a statistically shorter operative time. High rate of re-interventions with implant removal was documented in both groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Screw Stress Distribution in a Clavicle Fracture with Plate Fixation: A Finite Element Analysis

Clavicle midshaft fractures are mostly treated surgically by open internal reduction with a superior or anteroinferior plate and screws or by intramedullary nailing. Screw positioning plays a critical role in determining the stress distribution. There is a lack of data on the screw position and the appropriate number of cortices required for plate fixation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the mechanical behavior of an anterior plate implanted in a fractured bone subjected to 120° of lateral elevation compared to a healthy clavicle using numerical simulations. Contact forces and moments used were obtained from literature data and applied to the healthy and fractured finite element models. Stresses of about 9 MPa were found on the healthy clavicle, while values of about 15 MPa were calculated on the plate of the fractured one; these stress peaks were reached at about 30° and 70° of elevation when the stress shielding on the clavicle sums all the three components of the solicitation: compression, flexion, and torsion. The stress distribution in a clavicle fracture stabilized with plates and screws is influenced by several factors, including the plate's position and design, the type of screw, and the biomechanical forces applied during movements.