Literature DB >> 22810550

Anteroinferior 2.7-mm versus 3.5-mm plating for AO/OTA type B clavicle fractures: a comparative cohort clinical outcomes study.

Balazs Galdi1, Richard S Yoon, Edward W Choung, Mark C Reilly, Michael Sirkin, Wade R Smith, Frank A Liporace.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and Constant scores, time to union, rate of union, patient cosmetic satisfaction rate, and the need for secondary procedures between 2.7- and 3.5-mm anteroinferior plating for Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO)/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) type B clavicle fractures.
DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative cohort clinical outcomes study.
SETTING: Level I university trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPATION: Thirty-seven patients with an AO/OTA type B clavicle fracture who underwent open reduction internal fixation with either a 2.7- or 3.5-mm reconstruction plate placed in the anterior-inferior position. The main outcome comparisons included DASH score, Constant score, time to union, rate of union, rate of hardware failure, cosmetic satisfaction, and secondary procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: DASH score, constant score, time to union, rate of union, cosmetic satisfaction, secondary procedure.
RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, analysis yielded no significant differences in DASH scores (P = 0.26) and Constant Shoulder scores (P = 0.79) between the 2 cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences in the time to union (P = 0.86) and the rate of union (P = 0.49). Although the 2.7-mm cohort had a lower reoperation rate, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.11). However, the 2.7-mm cohort did demonstrate a significantly higher rate of cosmetically acceptable reconstruction (P = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 3.5-mm anterior-inferior plating, 2.7-mm anteroinferior plating for AO/OTA type B clavicle fractures leads to significantly higher rates of cosmetic acceptability while reducing the need for a secondary procedure and achieving excellent clinical outcomes as measured by the DASH and Constant scores. There were no differences between the 2.7 and 3.5 cohorts in time to union or in union rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22810550     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182693f32

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  11 in total

1.  Dual Versus Single-Plate Fixation of Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: A Retrospective Comparative Study.

Authors:  J Benjamin Allis; Edward C Cheung; Eric D Farrell; Eric E Johnson; Devon M Jeffcoat
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2020-04-01

2.  Treatment of a Recalcitrant Non-union of the Clavicle.

Authors:  Simran Grewal; Thomas Pa Baltes; Esther Wiegerinck; Peter Kloen
Journal:  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr       Date:  2022 Jan-Apr

3.  Anteroinferior 2.7-mm versus 3.5-mm plating of the clavicle: A biomechanical study.

Authors:  Nicholas Pulos; Richard S Yoon; Snehal Shetye; Michael W Hast; Frank Liporace; Derek J Donegan
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 4.  Does candidate for plate fixation selection improve the functional outcome after midshaft clavicle fracture? A systematic review of 1348 patients.

Authors:  M Vautrin; G Kaminski; B Barimani; J Elmers; V Philippe; S Cherix; E Thein; O Borens; F Vauclair
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2018-06-04

5.  Outcomes and complications after dual plate vs. single plate fixation of displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Z You; Halli Krzyzaniak; Joseph K Kendal; C Ryan Martin; Prism S Schneider
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-04-14

6.  Are clinical outcomes affected by type of plate used for management of mid-shaft clavicle fractures?

Authors:  Mohammad M Alzahrani; Adam Cota; Khalid Alkhelaifi; Aljarrah Aleidan; Gregory Berry; Rudy Reindl; Edward Harvey
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2018-08-15

7.  Variation of the clavicle's muscle insertion footprints - a cadaveric study.

Authors:  M Herteleer; S Vancleef; P Herijgers; J Duflou; I Jonkers; J Vander Sloten; S Nijs
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  No Difference in Risk of Implant Removal Between Orthogonal Mini-fragment and Single Small-fragment Plating of Midshaft Clavicle Fractures in a Military Population: A Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Chihua Lee; David A Feaker; Amy A Ostrofe; Christopher S Smith
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 9.  Operative versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a meta-analysis based on current evidence.

Authors:  Xin-Hua Wang; Wei-Jun Guo; A-Bing Li; Guang-Jun Cheng; Tao Lei; You-Ming Zhao
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.365

10.  Does plate type influence the clinical outcomes and implant removal in midclavicular fractures fixed with 2.7-mm anteroinferior plates? A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Alex K Gilde; Clifford B Jones; Debra L Sietsema; Martin F Hoffmann
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.