Comparative Results of External Fixation, Plating, or Nonoperative Management for Diaphyseal Clavicle Fractures.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the treatment outcomes of mid-diaphyseal clavicular fractures between an external fixator and more widely selected treatment options such as plate osteosynthesis or conservative methods.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

The medical records of 64 patients who were treated for mid-diaphyseal clavicular fracture in our clinic from 2009 to 2013 were reviewed. The inclusion criterion was mid-diaphyseal closed clavicular fractures with shortening of more than 2 cm. The Constant and DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand) scores at the final follow-up, initial displacement, nonunion, and complication rates were compared. Statistical differences between groups were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis test, and pairwise comparison analysis was used to evaluate the differences within the groups.

RESULTS

Of the 64 patients, 24 (37.5%) were treated with plate osteosynthesis (group 1), 11 (17.2%) with an external fixator (group 2), and 29 (45.3%) conservatively with a figure-of-eight bandage (group 3). The mean follow-up periods were as follows: group 1: 37 ± 10.4 months, group 2: 33 ± 7 months, and group 3: 35 ± 9.4 months. The initial amount of displacement and DASH score were: group 1: 89.1 ± 7.8, group 2: 89.1 ± 7.8, and group 3: 6.1 ± 6.6) (p = 0.079). The Constant score of group 2 (93 ± 6.1) was significantly higher than that of group 3 (85 ± 8.4) (p = 0.013). No statistical difference was found in the distribution of nonunions (p = 0.387). However, in group 3, the number of malunions (11/29, 37.9%) was significantly higher compared to the other 2 groups (group 1: 1/24, 4.2%; group 2: 2/11, 18.2%) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that the treatment of acute clavicular fractures with an external fixator was a good alternative to plate osteosynthesis or conservative treatment.