Comparison of hook plate versus T-plate in the treatment of Neer type II distal clavicle fractures: a prospective matched comparative cohort study.
Bone plates
Clavicle
Distal clavicle fracture
Hook plate
Internal fixators
T-plate
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Jul 2022
30 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
13
06
2022
accepted:
21
07
2022
entrez:
30
7
2022
pubmed:
31
7
2022
medline:
3
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of distal clavicle fracture fixation with a hook plate versus the standard non-locking T-plate for unstable Neer type II fractures. A prospective matched cohort study including two groups of hook plates and T-plates fixation was conducted in our two tertiary trauma centers. Patients with distal clavicle fractures Neer type II were assessed for union and the Constant-Murley score (CMS) at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Inadequate radiographic consolidation > 6 months after surgery was defined as non-union. Subscales of CMS Sixty consecutive patients were enrolled: 30 in the T-plate group and 30 in the hook plate group. CMS showed similar functional outcomes for T-plates and hook plates at all follow-ups (Month 6: 92.0 vs. 91.7, P = 0.45). However, on the month 1 follow-up, the T-plate group scored higher than the hook plate group for ROM and pain (CMS Both surgical approaches resulted in full recovery and good function. However, in the hook plate group ROM and pain scores were lower at 1 month. Standard non-locking T-plates are a viable alternative to hook plates with low cost and promising outcomes for treating displaced distal clavicle fractures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of distal clavicle fracture fixation with a hook plate versus the standard non-locking T-plate for unstable Neer type II fractures.
METHODS
METHODS
A prospective matched cohort study including two groups of hook plates and T-plates fixation was conducted in our two tertiary trauma centers. Patients with distal clavicle fractures Neer type II were assessed for union and the Constant-Murley score (CMS) at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Inadequate radiographic consolidation > 6 months after surgery was defined as non-union. Subscales of CMS
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixty consecutive patients were enrolled: 30 in the T-plate group and 30 in the hook plate group. CMS showed similar functional outcomes for T-plates and hook plates at all follow-ups (Month 6: 92.0 vs. 91.7, P = 0.45). However, on the month 1 follow-up, the T-plate group scored higher than the hook plate group for ROM and pain (CMS
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both surgical approaches resulted in full recovery and good function. However, in the hook plate group ROM and pain scores were lower at 1 month. Standard non-locking T-plates are a viable alternative to hook plates with low cost and promising outcomes for treating displaced distal clavicle fractures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35907856
doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03261-8
pii: 10.1186/s13018-022-03261-8
pmc: PMC9338617
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
369Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018 Aug;28(6):1065-1078
pubmed: 29569132
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Feb;46(1):207-213
pubmed: 30310957
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Dec 30;14(1):472
pubmed: 31888668
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Jun 11;15(1):217
pubmed: 32527319
J Orthop Surg Res. 2014 Feb 06;9:6
pubmed: 24502688
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Jan 24;17(1):43
pubmed: 35073954
Am J Sports Med. 2021 Nov 15;:3635465211053336
pubmed: 34779668
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Dec;22(12):1650-5
pubmed: 23850308
Open Orthop J. 2017 Feb 28;11:57-63
pubmed: 28400874
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Oct;19(7):1049-55
pubmed: 20338788
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 May;137(5):651-662
pubmed: 28321570
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Aug;32 Suppl 1:S2-S3
pubmed: 29985889
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022 Jan 5;:
pubmed: 34988674
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Jun;19(4):e13-5
pubmed: 20303294
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007 Apr;127(3):191-4
pubmed: 17221230
J Orthop Surg Res. 2014 May 29;9:42
pubmed: 24885387
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Dec 23;2018:5017162
pubmed: 30671456
Injury. 1992;23(1):44-6
pubmed: 1541499
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Jan-Feb;17(1):60-2
pubmed: 18036852
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jun;447:158-64
pubmed: 16505714
J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Apr 7;17(1):215
pubmed: 35392941
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Feb 5;102(3):254-261
pubmed: 31809393
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Jul-Aug;15(4):419-23
pubmed: 16831644
J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Aug;33(8):417-422
pubmed: 31335567
Int Orthop. 2006 Feb;30(1):7-10
pubmed: 16235083
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4
pubmed: 3791738
Orthopedics. 2012 Aug 1;35(8):e1191-7
pubmed: 22868604
Acta Orthop. 2013 Apr;84(2):184-90
pubmed: 23506165
Chin J Traumatol. 2009 Oct;12(5):299-301
pubmed: 19788849
Injury. 2009 Apr;40(4):455-7
pubmed: 19100545
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Feb;72(2):E14-9
pubmed: 22327996
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2014 Mar;7(1):33-9
pubmed: 24431027
Can J Surg. 2019 Feb 01;62(1):E14-E16
pubmed: 30694035
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Sep;90(9):1862-8
pubmed: 18762645
J Orthop Trauma. 2021 Jul 1;35(7):378-383
pubmed: 33177428
Acta Orthop Scand. 2002 Jan;73(1):50-3
pubmed: 11928911
Adv Orthop. 2021 Oct 25;2021:6789453
pubmed: 34733561
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010 Feb;130(2):159-64
pubmed: 19340435
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1968 May-Jun;58:43-50
pubmed: 5666866
Injury. 2009 Mar;40(3):236-9
pubmed: 19168176