| Literature DB >> 20661396 |
David S Thyagarajan1, Marion Day, Colin Dent, Rhys Williams, Richard Evans.
Abstract
We retrospectively evaluated 51 patients (17 in each of three groups) with mid shaft clavicle fractures. Group 1 underwent intramedullary stabilization using clavicle pins. Group 2 underwent open reduction and internal fixation using plates and group 3 underwent non operative treatment with a sling. Group1 patients progressed to union within 8 to 12 weeks. In Group 2, six patients had scar related pain and two had prominent metal work and discomfort and in group 3, three patients developed non union and one had symptomatic malunion. Our results suggest that the displaced and shortened midshaft clavicle fractures require operative fixation and the techniques of clavicle pinning resulted in less complications, short hospital stay and good functional outcome.Entities:
Keywords: Clavicle; clavicle pins; midshaft clavicle fractures
Year: 2009 PMID: 20661396 PMCID: PMC2904537 DOI: 10.4103/0973-6042.57895
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Shoulder Surg ISSN: 0973-6042
Figure 1The radiograph showing 100% displacement and more than 2 cm shortening of mid-shaft clavicle fracture
Figure 2Radiograph showing intramedullary stabilization using rockwood clavicle pins
Figure 3Diagram showing the site for incision
Distribution of ASES and constant scores by groups
| Variables | Group I clavicle pin ( | Group II plating ( | Group III nonoperative ( | Kruskal-Wallis test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Median | Mean | SD | Median | Mean | SD | Median | ||
| ASES score – subjective | ||||||||||
| Pain | 9.9 | 0.2 | 10.0 | 9.1 | 1.1 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 2.0 | 10.0 | 0.015 |
| Activities | 29.5 | 0.9 | 30.0 | 28.0 | 1.9 | 29.0 | 27.2 | 6.0 | 29.0 | 0.010 |
| ASES score – objective | ||||||||||
| Range of motion | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 39.9 | 0.5 | 40.0 | 38.2 | 4.6 | 40.0 | 0.006 |
| Strength | 20.0 | 0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 0 | 20.0 | 19.9 | 0.5 | 20.0 | 0.368 |
| Total score overall – score | 99.6 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 97.0 | 2.9 | 98.0 | 94.4 | 12.6 | 98.0 | 0.001 |
| Constant score – subjective | 34.3 | 1.0 | 35.0 | 32.2 | 1.9 | 33.0 | 32.2 | 4.8 | 34.0 | 0.001 |
| Constant score – objective | 63.5 | 2.3 | 65.0 | 61.4 | 3.5 | 60.0 | 56.8 | 11.9 | 60.0 | 0.021 |
| Total score overall – constant | 97.8 | 2.5 | 99.0 | 93.7 | 4.4 | 94.0 | 89.0 | 16.0 | 94.0 | 0.002 |
Comparison of ASES and constant scores between the three groups
| Variables | Mean rank | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group I | Group II | Group III | ||
| ASES score - subjective | ||||
| Pain | 31.7 | 20.1 | 26.2 | |
| Activities | 34.0 | 19.6 | 24.4 | |
| ASES score – objective | ||||
| Range of motion | 29.5 | 28.1 | 20.4 | |
| Strength | 26.5 | 26.5 | 25.0 | |
| Total score overall – score | 26.5 | 19.9 | 21.6 | |
| Constant score – subjective | 34.5 | 16.8 | 26.4 | |
| Constant score – objective | 33.1 | 24.6 | 20.3 | |
| Total score overall – constant | 36.5 | 20.6 | 21.0 | |