Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

대한견·주관절의학회 (Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Surgical treatment options of displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle in young adults: plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing

  • Ji Un Kim (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kangwon National University Hospital, Kangwon National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ji Young Yoon (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Police Hospital) ;
  • Hyung Jun Park (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jung Ho Park (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2024.08.05
  • 심사 : 2024.09.24
  • 발행 : 2024.12.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: This study aimed to compare the outcomes and complications of active young adults undergoing open reduction and plate fixation (ORPF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (MCFs). Methods: A retrospective review was performed on all patients undergoing ORPF and IMN of complete MCFs at a single center between 2018 and 2022. Patients who were younger than 60 years with radiographic follow-up until union were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 33.1 years. Outcome measures were achievement of union, time to healing, residual deformity, complications, and need for additional procedures. Results: Of 39 patients, 29 underwent ORPF and 10 underwent IMN. Plate fixation provided faster functional recovery in the first 6 months, but no difference was observed after 1 year. All fractures in the IMN group healed (100%), compared to 90% in the ORPF group (P=0.08). Mean time to union was 21±8.9 weeks and was significantly different between the two groups (P<0.01), with the ORPF group averaging 23.1 weeks and the IMN group 20.8 weeks. Nonunion rates were higher in the ORPF group (10.3%) than in the IMN group (0%), but the difference was not significant (P=0.08). Conclusions: Both methods restored patients to their pre-injury functional levels. However, IMN, with its higher healing rate, fewer required revision surgeries, and lower incisional numbness, appears to be the preferred method for treating MSFs without comminution in young adults. Level of evidence: III.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Nordqvist A, Petersson C. The incidence of fractures of the clavicle. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;(300):127–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199403000-00016
  2. Postacchini F, Gumina S, De Santis P, Albo F. Epidemiology of clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002;11:452–6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2002.126613
  3. McKee MD, Pedersen EM, Jones C, et al. Deficits following nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:35–40.
  4. Zlowodzki M, Zelle BA, Cole PA, Jeray K, McKee MD. Treatment of acute midshaft clavicle fractures: systematic review of 2144 fractures: on behalf of the Evidence-Based Orthopaedic Trauma Working Group. J Orthop Trauma 2005;19:504–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bot.0000172287.44278.ef
  5. Hillen RJ, Burger BJ, Pöll RG, van Dijk CN, Veeger DH. The effect of experimental shortening of the clavicle on shoulder kinematics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012;27:777–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.05.003
  6. Wilson DJ, Scully WF, Min KS, Harmon TA, Eichinger JK, Arrington ED. Biomechanical analysis of intramedullary vs. superior plate fixation of transverse midshaft clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25:949–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.10.006
  7. Vander Have KL, Perdue AM, Caird MS, Farley FA. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop 2010;30:307–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181db3227
  8. Yadav S, Phalak MO, Shevate I, et al. Comparative study of postoperative outcomes of clavicle midshaft fracture treated by nailing vs. plating. Cureus 2022;14:e22862. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.22862
  9. Song HS, Kim H. Current concepts in the treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures in adults. Clin Shoulder Elb 2021;24:189–98. https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2021.00388
  10. Yan MZ, Yuen WS, Yeung SC, et al. Operative management of midshaft clavicle fractures demonstrates better long-term outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS One 2022;17:e0267861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267861
  11. Choudhari P. Displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a subset for surgical treatment. Malays Orthop J 2014;8:1–5. https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.1407.008
  12. Chan G, Korac Z, Miletic M, Vidovic D, Phadnis J, Bakota B. Plate versus intramedullary fixation of two-part and multifragmentary displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a long-term analysis. Injury 2017;48 Suppl 5:S21–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30734-9
  13. Duan X, Zhong G, Cen S, Huang F, Xiang Z. Plating versus intramedullary pin or conservative treatment for midshaft fracture of clavicle: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:1008–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.01.018
  14. Robinson CM. Fractures of the clavicle in the adult: epidemiology and classification. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:476–84. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B3.0800476
  15. Alzahrani MM, Cota A, Alkhelaifi K, et al. Are clinical outcomes affected by type of plate used for management of midshaft clavicle fractures. J Orthop Traumatol 2018;19:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-018-0492-0
  16. Wolf S, Chitnis AS, Manoranjith A, et al. Surgical treatment, complications, reoperations, and healthcare costs among patients with clavicle fracture in England. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022;23:135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05075-5
  17. Chen W, Zhu Y, Liu S, et al. Demographic and socioeconomic factors influencing the incidence of clavicle fractures, a national population-based survey of five hundred and twelve thousand, one hundred and eighty seven individuals. Int Orthop 2018;42:651–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3815-0
  18. Kihlström C, Möller M, Lönn K, Wolf O. Clavicle fractures: epidemiology, classification and treatment of 2 422 fractures in the Swedish Fracture Register. An observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18:82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1444-1
  19. Ostergaard PJ, Hall MJ, Xiong G, Zhang D, Earp BE. Risk factors for implant removal after surgical fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures. Orthopedics 2022;45:e201–6. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20220225-10
  20. Park JS, Ko SH, Hong TH, et al. Plate fixation versus titanium elastic nailing in midshaft clavicle fractures based on fracture classifications. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2020;28:2309499020972204. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499020972204
  21. Wijdicks FJ, Van der Meijden OA, Millett PJ, Verleisdonk EJ, Houwert RM. Systematic review of the complications of plate fixation of clavicle fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012;132:617–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1456-5
  22. Osateerakun P, Limpaphayom N. Elastic stable intramedullary nail: the viable technique for pediatric long bone fixation. Thai J Orthop Surg 2014;38:31–7.
  23. Jubel A, Andermahr J, Prokop A, Isenberg J, Rehm KE. Minimal invasive biological osteosynthesis of the clavicle with a titanium nail. Kongressbd Dtsch Ges Chir Kongr 2002;119:485–90.
  24. Frigg A, Rillmann P, Perren T, Gerber M, Ryf C. Intramedullary nailing of clavicular midshaft fractures with the titanium elastic nail: problems and complications. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:352–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508328103
  25. Vajrangi A, Shetty SV, Shenoy RM. A comparative study between plate fixation and intramedullary fixation for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures in adults. Malays Orthop J 2022;16:40–5. https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2203.006
  26. Hussain N, Sermer C, Prusick PJ, Banfield L, Atrey A, Bhandari M. Intramedullary nailing versus plate fixation for the treatment displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2016;6:34912. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34912