ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the clinical outcome of shape memory alloy (SMA) embra-cing fixator and reconstruction plate fixation in treatment of displaced or comminuted midshaft clavicle fractures. Methods There were 65 patients with displaced or comminuted midshaft clavicle fractures surgically treated with either a SMA embracing fixator or a reconstruction plate. The patients were divided into two groups according to fixation methods, ie, SMA embracing fixator group (30 patients at average age of 28.1 years) and reconstruction plate group (35 patients at average age of 26.1 years). All pa-tients were followed up for mean 12 months and shoulder function was evaluated using shoulder score. Results Compared with reconstruction plate group, SMA embracing fixator had shorter operation time, smaller wound incision and less loss blood (all P < 0.05). However, there was no statistical difference in aspects of hospital stay, cost, JOA shoulder score and bone union rate between two groups (all P > 0.05). Conclusion The internal fixation with SMA embracing fixator is better than reconstruction plate fixation in treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures.