Plate fixation versus titanium elastic nailing in midshaft clavicle fractures based on fracture classifications.

Abstract

The best strategy for implant selection in midshaft clavicular fractures (MCF) remains controversial. The present study aims to determine the optimal strategy for implant selection by comparing plate and Titanium Elastic Nail (TEN) with respect to outcomes and related complications and analyze the results based on fracture patterns. A total of 97 patients with MCF who underwent plate (48 patients) or TEN (49 patients) fixation were retrospectively reviewed. Both groups were divided into three subgroups by fracture type using the AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification: simple fracture (type A), wedge fracture (type B), and multi-fragmentary fracture (type C). The observed outcome measures were bone union rate, related complications, functional scores, and patient satisfaction score. These outcomes were analyzed based on the fracture classification. Both groups demonstrated excellent union rates (p = 0.495) and similar functional scores (p > 0.05). Visual analog scale (VAS) for satisfaction was better in TEN than plate fixation (p < 0.001). In type A and B subgroups, there were no significant difference in functional scores between plate and TEN fixation (p > 0.05). In type C subgroup, however, both VAS for pain and DASH score in TEN fixation were significantly worse than in plate fixation at 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively (p < 0.05). The incidences of clavicle shortening and skin irritation are higher especially in type C subgroup of TEN fixation (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction of TEN fixation was higher than that of plate fixation, but TEN fixation had a higher incidence of early postoperative pain and migration in type C fractures. Therefore, type A and B fractures can successfully be treated with plate or TEN fixation, but type C fractures should be treated with plate fixation.