ABSTRACT
Hook plate fixation and locking plate fixation are two standard internal fixation implants for treating distal clavicle fractures. We aimed to clarify the following: 1) Does the locking plate offer better clinical outcomes than the hook plate? 2) Is bone union better with a locking plate than hook plate? and 3) Are complications different between the locking plate and hook plate? We conducted a retrospective multicenter study of 338 patients who underwent surgery from 2014 to 2018 in our 10 hospitals, which comprise the TRON group. Of them, 208 patients treated using any plates were eligible. After 30 patients were excluded for various reasons, 178 patients were included. We classified them into two groups, locking plate group (Group L) and hook plate group (Group H), using propensity score matching. We confirmed bone union with an X-ray, evaluated the UCLA shoulder score, and compared the frequency of complications. After matching, Group L and Group H included 49 patients each. The UCLA score was higher in Group L than in Group H at each follow-up point. We confirmed bone union in all patients in Group L, but it was not confirmed in three patients (6.1%) in Group H. No statistically significant differences were observed except for plate migration, which was observed in nine patients (18.4%) in Group H but in no patients in Group L. The postoperative UCLA score was significantly better in Group L. We recommend the locking plate as a surgical treatment for distal clavicle fractures.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and complications between locking plate fixation and new coracoclavicular (CC) fixation for patients with unstable distal clavicle fracture. METHODS: We included 142 patients in this TRON study. The mean follow-up was 15.5 (6-31) months. The patients were divided into two groups: the locking plate group (Group L) and CC fixation group (Group C). To adjust for baseline differences between the groups, a propensity score algorithm was used to match two groups in a 1:1 ratio. After matching, we compared operation time and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score at 3 and 6 months postoperatively and at last follow-up as clinical outcomes and the rate of complications. RESULTS: After matching, 20 cases from each group remained. Operation time was shorter in Group C (75 [22, 111] vs. 100 [38, 120] min; P = 0.023). At 3 months postoperatively, UCLA score in Group C was better, but no significant differences between the groups were found at 6 months and last follow-up after surgery. The rate of complications was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: CC fixation might be equivalent to locking plate fixation in clinical outcome, and the operation time is shorter than that required for locking plate fixation.
