OBJECTIVES: To compare precontoured (Pc) small fragment plating to dual mini-fragment plating (DmF) for open reduction and internal fixation of diaphyseal clavicle fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 133 patients with displaced fractures of the diaphyseal clavicle (OTA/AO 15-B1, -2, and -3) treated with open reduction and internal fixation with a minimum of 1 year follow-up or until radiographic and clinical union. INTERVENTION: Two patient cohorts were identified: (1) patients treated with orthogonal DmF plate constructs and (2) patients treated with Pc clavicle-specific plates. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Union rate and implant removal were assessed using standard descriptive statistics. Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P values (P) were calculated. RESULTS: There were 60 DmF and 74 Pc patients. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, sex, surgeon, body mass index, or mode of fixation. There was no significant difference in union (98.3% DmF; 100% Pc, P = 0.45) or maintenance of reduction (98.3% DmF; 100% Pc, P = 0.45). A total of 8% of DmF patients had symptomatic implant removal compared with 20% of Pc patients (odds ratio 0.36, confidence interval 0.12-1.05, P = 0.061). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective comparative study found no difference in union or maintenance of reduction for diaphyseal clavicle fractures fixed with DmF compared with Pc plating. Patients treated with DmF plates may have lower rates of symptomatic implant removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
OBJECTIVES: To compare precontoured (Pc) small fragment plating to dual mini-fragment plating (DmF) for open reduction and internal fixation of diaphyseal clavicle fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 133 patients with displaced fractures of the diaphyseal clavicle (OTA/AO 15-B1, -2, and -3) treated with open reduction and internal fixation with a minimum of 1 year follow-up or until radiographic and clinical union. INTERVENTION: Two patient cohorts were identified: (1) patients treated with orthogonal DmF plate constructs and (2) patients treated with Pc clavicle-specific plates. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Union rate and implant removal were assessed using standard descriptive statistics. Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P values (P) were calculated. RESULTS: There were 60 DmF and 74 Pc patients. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, sex, surgeon, body mass index, or mode of fixation. There was no significant difference in union (98.3% DmF; 100% Pc, P = 0.45) or maintenance of reduction (98.3% DmF; 100% Pc, P = 0.45). A total of 8% of DmF patients had symptomatic implant removal compared with 20% of Pc patients (odds ratio 0.36, confidence interval 0.12-1.05, P = 0.061). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective comparative study found no difference in union or maintenance of reduction for diaphyseal clavicle fractures fixed with DmF compared with Pc plating. Patients treated with DmF plates may have lower rates of symptomatic implant removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.