Treatment of Displaced Clavicular Shaft Fracture: a Comparison Between Locking and Nonlocking Reconstruction Plating

高堪达,黄建华,高伟,吴晓明,王秋根,张秋林,李豪青
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-7600.2010.11.001
2010-01-01
Abstract:Objective To retrospectively compare the therapeutic effects of straight locking and nonlocking reconstruction plating for displaced clavicular shaft fractures. Methods Between March 2006 and January 2010, 97 patients with single-sided, isolated, displaced clavicular shaft fractures (Edinburgh 2B)were treated with open reduction and plate fixation. Thirty-seven cases (22 males and 15 females with a mean age of 41.2 years) received straight locking reconstruction plating and 60 cases (37 males and 23 females with a mean age of 38.5 years) had nonlocking reconstruction plating. We compared the hardware failure rates and the Constant-Murley scores for the suffered shoulders between the 2 groups. Results The mean follow-up period was 10. 7 months (range, 6 to 12 months) in the locking group, and 9. 8 months (range, 6 to 12 months) in the nonlocking group. In the locking plate group, 33 fractures healed uneventfully with an average healing time of 4. 6 months (range, 3 to 6 months). In the nonlocking plate group, 58 fractures healed with an average healing time of 4. 1 months (range, 3 to 6 months) . A significantly higher plate breakage rate (10. 8% ) was observed in the locking plate group than in the nonlocking group (1.7%) (x2 = 3. 914, P =0. 048). The Constant-Murley score was 87.3 ±6. 5 (range, 82 to 95) in the locking plate group and 90.4 ±3.0 (range, 83 to 97) in the nonlocking plate group, without any significant difference between the 2 groups ( t = - 0. 730, P = 0. 467 ). Conclusion It may not be appropriate to treat a displaced clavicular shaft fracture, particularly a simple one, with a straight locking reconstruction plate.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?