Are clinical outcomes affected by type of plate used for management of mid-shaft clavicle fractures?

Background Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using plate osteosynthesis for midshaft clavicle fractures is often complicated by the prominence of the implant due to the subcutaneous position of the clavicle. Reoperation rates for symptomatic clavicle plate removal have been reported to be as high as 53%. We sought to determine to which degree do clinical outcomes (all cause reoperation rate and rate of fracture union) differ between types of clavicle plates. Materials and methods A retrospective chart review was performed using our hospital database for patients treated with ORIF for mid-shaft clavicle fractures (OTA/AO type 15-B). Implants included in this review were 2.7 mm reconstruction plates, 3.5 mm reconstruction plates, 3.5 mm precontoured clavicle plates and 3.5 mm locking compression plates. The primary outcome measure was the all cause reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes compared the rate fracture union, documented infection, hardware failures and clinical symptoms at the surgical site among the various plate types. Data was collected and descriptive statistics were analyzed. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results A total of 102 midshaft clavicle fractures treated with ORIF were included in this study. The majority of patients were ≤ 50 years old (83.3%) and male (72.5%). The overall union rate for all plating constructs was 97.1%. We found that age, sex and smoking were not associated with the rate of re-operation. In addition, the fracture classification, type of implant used and number of screws used didn’t increase the risk of revision surgery. In addition, more than 50% of patients complaining of pain at 6 weeks post-operatively required a second surgery for removal of hardware. Moreover, there was no association between age, sex, smoking, fracture classification or plate type and the rate of union. Interestingly, clavicle fractures fixed with 3.5 mm reconstruction plates were more likely to have hardware failure due to plastic deformation, whereas 2.7 mm plates were more likely to fail by plate breakage. Conclusion Although different types of implants have different biomechanical properties, no difference in reoperation, union and plate removal rates were found between the various plate types. Future studies with a larger sample size are required to further examine these outcomes. Level of evidence Level III.