Use of plate fixation without coracoclavicular ligament augmentation for unstable distal clavicle fractures.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of unstable distal clavicle fractures treated with anatomic plate fixation without coracoclavicular ligament augmentation and to compare the outcome of Neer type IIA with that of type IIB. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with unstable distal clavicle fractures who underwent anatomic plate fixation without coracoclavicular ligament augmentation were enrolled prospectively, including 9 patients of Neer type IIA and 16 patients of Neer type IIB. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Constant and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) scores. Coracoclavicular distance was measured on plain radiographs. RESULTS: Bone union was achieved in all patients. Satisfactory clinical and radiologic outcomes were obtained regardless of fracture type. After operation, the mean coracoclavicular distance on the injured side was increased by 10% compared with the uninjured side. However, between the patients who showed an increased coracoclavicular distance >10% (Constant score, 89.4 ± 3.7; UCLA score, 32.6 ± 3) and the patients with increased coracoclavicular distance <10% of the uninjured side (Constant score, 88.7 ± 3.6; UCLA score, 31.9 ± 3), there was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes of Constant score (P = .934) and UCLA score (P = .598). CONCLUSION: In unstable distal clavicle fractures, precontoured anatomic plate fixation without coracoclavicular ligament augmentation showed satisfactory clinical outcomes and high union rates even with a small lateral fragment. Patients who had increased coracoclavicular distance also demonstrated satisfactory shoulder functional outcomes regardless of the fracture type. Therefore, anatomic plate fixation without additional coracoclavicular ligament augmentation can be considered one of the treatment options for unstable distal clavicle fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Case Series; Treatment Study.

What is the minimum clinically important difference in grip strength?

BACKGROUND: Grip strength reflects functional status of the upper extremity and has been used in many of the clinical studies regarding upper extremity disease or fracture. However, the smallest difference in grip strength that a patient would notice as an improvement resulting from treatment (defined as the minimum clinically important difference [MCID]), to our knowledge has not been determined. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked (1) how 1-year postsurgery grip strength compares with preinjury values; (2) if grip strength correlated with patient's ratings; (3) what the MCID is in the grip strength; and (4) if these values are equivalent to or greater than what can be explained by measurement errors in patients treated for distal radius fracture. METHODS: Fifty patients treated by volar locking plate fixation for a distal radius fracture constituted the study cohort. Grip strengths were measured 1 year after surgery on the injured and uninjured sides using a dynamometer. Grip strengths before injury were estimated using the grip strengths of the uninjured side with consideration of hand dominance. Patients were asked to rate their subjective level of grip strength weakness at 1 year postoperatively. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was used to determine MCIDs. Minimal detectable change in grip strength, which is a statistical estimate of the smallest change between two measurement points expected by measurement error or chance alone, also was determined using the formula 1.65 × âˆš2 × standard error of measurement. RESULTS: One year after surgery, grip strength (23 kg; 95% CI, 20-27) was less compared with calculated preinjury values (28 kg; 95% CI, 25-31; p < 0.001). Patients' rating of grip strength and measured grip strength changes correlated well (p = 0.56). MCIDs were 6.5 kg for grip strength and 19.5% for percentage grip strength. The MCID was not less than the minimum detectable change for grip strength (also 6.5 kg). CONCLUSIONS: The MCID of the grip strength was a decrease of 6.5 kg (19.5%). We believe the MCID of grip strength is useful for evaluating effectiveness of new treatments and for determining appropriate sample size in clinical trials of distal radius fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III diagnostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.