A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing plating augmented with coracoclavicular fixation and hook plate fixation of displaced distal-third clavicle fractures

Lateral clavicle fracture-plating options and considerations

Clavicle fractures are among the most prevalent types of fractures with numerous treatment strategies that have evolved over time. In the realm of lateral-third clavicle fracture management, several surgical methods are available, with plate and screw constructs being one of the most frequently employed options. Within this construct, numerous choices exist for fixing the fracture. This editorial provides an overview of the common plate options utilized in the management of distal third clavicle fractures underscoring the critical considerations and approaches that guide clinicians in selecting the most appropriate fixation techniques, considering the complex landscape of clavicle fractures and their challenging management.

Evidence on treatment of clavicle fractures

Depending on the severity of the injury and the involvement of the soft tissue envelope, clavicle fractures can be treated operatively or non-operatively. In the past, displaced fractures of the clavicle shaft in adults have been treated non-operatively. However, the rate of nonunion following non-operative treatment seems to be higher than previously reported. In addition, publications reporting better functional outcomes following operative treatment are increasing. In recent years this has led to a paradigm shift towards an increase of operative fracture treatment. The aim of this review article was to summarize the currently available evidence on the treatment of clavicle fractures. Classifications, indications, and treatment options for different fracture patterns of the medial, midshaft, and lateral clavicles are presented and discussed.

Operative Management for Displaced Distal Clavicle Fractures

This article reviews techniques and outcomes of surgical fixation for distal clavicle fractures. Near 100% union has been reported for several techniques. The most common are locked plating, coracoclavicular fixation and a combination of plating with CC fixation. Hook plates are useful for particular fracture patterns, but there can be complications specific to this implant. Low-profile constructs are favored due to the high rates of symptomatic hardware. Fixation of subacute and chronic injuries can provide reliable functional improvements, but is inferior to acute fixation. Surgery is generally the treatment of choice for displaced fractures in athletes.

Hook Plate Versus Distal Locking Plate for the Fixation of Unstable Distal Clavicle Injuries, Outcomes and Complications: A Meta-Analysis

Numerous interventions are advised for the surgical management of distal clavicle fractures. Hook plate (HP) and distal locking plate (DLP) are among the commonly used techniques; nonetheless, no single procedure is deemed to be the benchmark treatment. Thus, the aim of the study is to conduct a comparative analysis, hopefully, to recommend the superior method between the two operations.

PubMed, Embase via Ovid and Web of science were electronically searched between January 2000 and to date for studies directly comparing HP to DLP. Comparative retrospective/prospective and randomized studies were incorporated. Constant-Murley score “CMS” at a minimum of 12 months, pain visual analogue scale “VAS”, coracoclavicular distance “CCD” and reported complications were analysed. Review manager software was used for the statistical analyses.

The total number of patients was 523; 274 (52.3%) with HP and 249 (47.6%) with DLP, 81 of which were associated with CC reconstruction. The mean follow up was 38.7 and 37.03 months for HP and DLP, respectively. CMS leaned towards the DLP group with no statistically significant difference (P=0.06). VAS was in favour of the DLP with again no statistically significant difference (P=0.12). In terms of CCD, the comparison favoured the HP with a lesser CCD postoperatively and a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Complications were significantly higher in the HP group (P<0.0001).

Contrary to our hypothesis, though HP did show a better radiological outcome; nonetheless, DLP did demonstrate a better functional result with a lesser rate of complications and the ability to retain the implant avoiding a second surgery.