Abstract
Aim: To compare and evaluate results following fixation of displaced clavicle fracture using three different plates.
Methods: Between 1994 and 2001, forty patients with displaced midclavicular fracture were plated with three different type of implants. The mean age of the patients was thirty-four years. Reconstruction Plate was used in twenty, 3.5 mm DCP in ten and 3.5mm LCDCP in ten. Twenty-eight fractures were multifragmentary. The interfragmentary screw technique was used in fifteen cases and one patient required bone grafting.
Evaluation: In this retrospective study, the patients’ shoulder function, rate of fracture union, and complications between the three different types of plate were evaluated and compared.
Results: Patients whose fracture was treated with DCP or LCDCP all achieved union within three months. One LCDCP lifted laterally after the patient went back to manual work within two weeks. Of the patients whose fracture was treated with reconstruction plate (20), only twelve united uneventfully within three months. Eight complications were recorded. Delayed union occurred in three, loss of fixation in two and the plate bent in the remaining three. All the complications were observed in multifragmentary fractures.
Conclusion: The more malleable reconstruction plate appeared to deform under load when used in the fixation of displaced multifragmentary clavicular fracture. We recommend the stronger LCDCP in this situation.
The abstracts were prepared by David Stanley. Correspondence should be addressed to him c/o British Orthopaedic Association, Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN.
