BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic results of titanium elastic nail (TEN) and plate osteosynthesis for treatment of clavicle fractures in patients with a floating shoulder injury. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2000 to 2008, 16 patients with a floating shoulder injury (ipsilateral clavicle and minor displaced scapular neck fracture) were treated by isolated stabilization of the clavicle. The patients were treated with open reduction and plate osteosynthesis (group 1[G1]) or TEN osteosynthesis (group 2 [G2]). Both procedures were compared with regard to functional and radiologic outcome. RESULTS: Nine patients were treated with a plate osteosynthesis (G1) and seven with a TEN osteosynthesis (G2). The follow-up time was 35.7 months ± 16 months. There was no difference in functional outcome with regard to the intraindividual Constant score 83.9(G1) versus 86.7 (G2) or the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score 79.1 (G1) versus 85.7 (G2). No significant postoperative dislocation of the glenopolar angle appeared. In the TEN-treated group, a clavicle shortening of 2.4 mm was observed. Subgroup analysis revealed significant greater shortening in type B and C compared with type A (OTA) clavicle fractures(4.7 mm vs. 0.8 mm). No clavicle shortening in the plate-treated group appeared. CONCLUSION: The treatment of floating shoulder injuries with TEN and plate osteosynthesis of the clavicle and nonoperative treatment of a minimally displaced glenoid neck fracture provide equal functional results. However, in type B and C (but not in type A) fractures of the clavicle, a shortening of 5 mm can be expected after titanium elastic nailing.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic results of titanium elastic nail (TEN) and plate osteosynthesis for treatment of clavicle fractures in patients with a floating shoulder injury. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2000 to 2008, 16 patients with a floating shoulder injury (ipsilateral clavicle and minor displaced scapular neck fracture) were treated by isolated stabilization of the clavicle. The patients were treated with open reduction and plate osteosynthesis (group 1[G1]) or TEN osteosynthesis (group 2 [G2]). Both procedures were compared with regard to functional and radiologic outcome. RESULTS: Nine patients were treated with a plate osteosynthesis (G1) and seven with a TEN osteosynthesis (G2). The follow-up time was 35.7 months ± 16 months. There was no difference in functional outcome with regard to the intraindividual Constant score 83.9(G1) versus 86.7 (G2) or the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score 79.1 (G1) versus 85.7 (G2). No significant postoperative dislocation of the glenopolar angle appeared. In the TEN-treated group, a clavicle shortening of 2.4 mm was observed. Subgroup analysis revealed significant greater shortening in type B and C compared with type A (OTA) clavicle fractures(4.7 mm vs. 0.8 mm). No clavicle shortening in the plate-treated group appeared. CONCLUSION: The treatment of floating shoulder injuries with TEN and plate osteosynthesis of the clavicle and nonoperative treatment of a minimally displaced glenoid neck fracture provide equal functional results. However, in type B and C (but not in type A) fractures of the clavicle, a shortening of 5 mm can be expected after titanium elastic nailing.