Comparative Results of External Fixation, Plating, or Nonoperative Management for Diaphyseal Clavicle Fractures

摘要

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the treatment outcomes of mid-diaphyseal clavicular fractures between an external fixator and more widely selected treatment options such as plate osteosynthesis or conservative methods. Materials and Methods: The medical records of 64 patients who were treated for mid-diaphyseal clavicular fracture in our clinic from 2009 to 2013 were reviewed. The inclusion criterion was mid-diaphyseal closed clavicular fractures with shortening of more than 2 cm. The Constant and DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand) scores at the final follow-up, initial displacement, nonunion, and complication rates were compared. Statistical differences between groups were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis test, and pairwise comparison analysis was used to evaluate the differences within the groups. Results: Of the 64 patients, 24 (37.5%) were treated with plate osteosynthesis (group 1), 11 (17.2%) with an external fixator (group 2), and 29 (45.3%) conservatively with a figure-of-eight bandage (group 3). The mean follow-up periods were as follows: group 1: 37 ± 10.4 months, group 2: 33 ± 7 months, and group 3: 35 ± 9.4 months. The initial amount of displacement and DASH score were: group 1: 89.1 ± 7.8, group 2: 89.1 ± 7.8, and group 3: 6.1 ± 6.6) ( p = 0.079). The Constant score of group 2 (93 ± 6.1) was significantly higher than that of group 3 (85 ± 8.4) ( p = 0.013). No statistical difference was found in the distribution of nonunions ( p = 0.387). However, in group 3, the number of malunions (11/29, 37.9%) was significantly higher compared to the other 2 groups (group 1: 1/24, 4.2%; group 2: 2/11, 18.2%) ( p = 0.006). Conclusions: This study revealed that the treatment of acute clavicular fractures with an external fixator was a good alternative to plate osteosynthesis or conservative treatment.