Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr 1;5(2):e0043.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.19.00043. eCollection 2020 Apr-Jun.

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

J Benjamin Allis  1 , Edward C Cheung  2 , Eric D Farrell  2 , Eric E Johnson  2 , Devon M Jeffcoat  2
Affiliations

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

J Benjamin Allis et al. JB JS Open Access. .

Abstract

Background: Implant-related symptoms are the most common reason for reoperation after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of midshaft clavicular fractures. Dual mini-fragment plate fixation is a relatively new solution that may decrease implant prominence while maintaining fixation strength and function. There are minimal published data comparing reoperation rates and clinical outcomes between single, superior-plate constructs and dual mini-fragment plate constructs in the fixation of midshaft clavicular fractures. We hypothesized that reducing plate size with the use of dual mini-fragment plating compared with standard, 3.5-mm, superior plating would minimize implant symptoms and the corresponding need for reoperation while still providing sufficient fixation to allow fracture-healing and return to function.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the cases of 44 consecutive patients who underwent ORIF of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures utilizing either a single, 3.5-mm, superior plate construct (21 patients) or a dual, 2.7-mm and 2.4-mm, plate construct (23 patients). Outcomes at a minimum of 2 years were assessed. Primary outcome measures included reoperation for any reason and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section.

Results: There was a 100% union rate in both groups. None (0%) of the 23 patients who received the dual (2.7-mm and 2.4-mm) plate construct and 6 (29%) of the 21 patients who received the single (3.5-mm) plate construct underwent reoperation for implant-related symptoms. Using a Fisher exact test, the rate of reoperation was compared between the groups, and the difference was found to be significant (p = 0.008). Using an unpaired t test, the difference in mean ASES scores was not significant (p = 0.138) between the dual-plate group (98 of 100) and the single superior plate group (96 of 100) with retained implants.

Conclusions: In our comparative retrospective series, dual fixation utilizing a 2.7-mm superior plate and a 2.4-mm anterior plate for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures was associated with a significantly lower rate of reoperation when compared with single, 3.5-mm, superior plate fixation.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: The authors indicated that no external funding was received for any aspect of this work. On the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms, which are provided with the online version of the article, one or more of the authors checked “yes” to indicate that the author had a relevant financial relationship in the biomedical arena outside the submitted work (http://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/A148).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Anteroposterior radiograph of a right clavicle demonstrating dual-plate fixation of the clavicular fracture.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007. January;89(1):1-10. - PubMed
    1. McKee RC, Whelan DB, Schemitsch EH, McKee MD. Operative versus nonoperative care of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012. April 18;94(8):675-84. - PubMed
    1. Altamimi SA, McKee MD; Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008. March;90(Suppl 2 Pt 1):1-8. - PubMed
    1. Khan LA, Bradnock TJ, Scott C, Robinson CM. Fractures of the clavicle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009. February;91(2):447-60. - PubMed
    1. Kulshrestha V, Roy T, Audige L. Operative versus nonoperative management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a prospective cohort study. J Orthop Trauma. 2011. January;25(1):31-8. - PubMed