Clinical outcome and operative cost comparison: Locked compression plate versus reconstruction plate in midshaft clavicle fractures.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and operative cost of a locked compression plate (LCP) and a nonlocked reconstruction plate in the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fracture.

METHODS

From January 2013 till March 2018, a total of 55 patients with acute unilateral closed midshaft clavicle fracture were treated with either a 3.5-mm pre-contoured LCP [32 patients; 25 men and 7 women; mean age: 35 years (range: 19-63 years)] or a 3.5-mm nonlocked reconstruction plate [23 patients; 20 men and 3 women; mean age: 31.4 years (range: 17-61 years)]. The clinical outcomes in terms of fracture union, Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, implant irritation, failure rate, and reoperation rate were evaluated retrospectively. The patient billing records were reviewed to obtain primary operation, reoperation, and total operative cost for midshaft clavicle fracture. These values were analyzed and converted from Malaysia Ringgit (RM) to United States Dollar (USD) at the exchange rate of RM 1 to USD 0.24. All patients were followed up for at least one-year duration.

RESULTS

The mean time to fracture union, implant irritation, implant failure, and reoperation rate showed no significant difference between the two groups of patients. The mean Quick DASH score was significantly better in the reconstruction plate group with 13 points compared with 28 points in the LCP group (p=0.003). In terms of total operative cost, the LCP group recorded a cost of USD 391 higher than the reconstruction plate group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The 3.5-mm reconstruction plate achieved not only satisfactory clinical outcomes but was also more cost-effective than the LCP in the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic study.