• Chunlin Zhang, Junwu Huang, Yi Luo, and Hua Sun.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Affiliated with Tongji University, 301 YanChang Zhong Road, Shanghai, China, 200072, shzhangchunlin@gmail.com.
• Int Orthop. 2014 Jul 1;38(7):1461-8.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare and review the clinical outcomes between the distal clavicular locking plate and clavicular hook plates in the treatment of unstable distal clavicle fractures; moreover, the relevant literature of the two fixation methods was reviewed systematically to identify the non-union, complications, or functional scores, according to the treatment methods and determine which treatment method is better.MethodsSixty-six patients with 66 unstable distal clavicle fractures who underwent open reduction and internal fixation with either a distal clavicular locking plate (36 patients) or a clavicular hook plate (30 patients ) were evaluated. The main outcome comparisons included Constant score, rate of non-union, rate of complication, and rate of returning to work three months postoperatively.ResultsNo significant difference was found between locking plate and hook plate groups in union rate and Constant score (P > 0.05). However, the results indicated that the distal clavicular locking plate group had a significantly lower rate of complications (P < 0.05) and symptomatic hardware (P < 0.05). In addition, the distal clavicular locking plate facilitated the return to work better than the clavicular hook plate (P < 0.05).ConclusionsBoth distal clavicular locking plate and clavicular hook plate achieved good results in the treatment of unstable distal clavicle fractures; however, internal fixation with a distal clavicular locking plate had greater ability to return to their previous work after surgery in three months and fewer complications than the clavicular hook plate.

19 keywords...

hide…