Cargando…

A Biomechanical and Clinical Comparison of Midshaft Clavicle Plate Fixation: Are 2 Screws as Good as 3 on Each Side of the Fracture?

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for plating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures has been 6 cortices of purchase on each side of the fracture. The use of locking plates and screws may afford equivalent biomechanical strength with fewer cortices of purchase on each side of the fracture. PURPOSE: To...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Larsen, Christopher G., Sleasman, Brian, Chudik, Steven C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2017
Materias:
117
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5582661/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28894757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967117725293
_version_ 1783261221400608768
author Larsen, Christopher G.
Sleasman, Brian
Chudik, Steven C.
author_facet Larsen, Christopher G.
Sleasman, Brian
Chudik, Steven C.
author_sort Larsen, Christopher G.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The standard of care for plating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures has been 6 cortices of purchase on each side of the fracture. The use of locking plates and screws may afford equivalent biomechanical strength with fewer cortices of purchase on each side of the fracture. PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical and clinical performance of 3- versus 2-screw constructs for plating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study/cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Lateral fragments of simulated midshaft fractures in 10 pairs of cadaveric clavicles were randomly assigned to plate fixation with either 3 nonlocking screws or 2 locking screws. Cyclic tensile loads were applied along the long axis of the clavicle. The constructs were then loaded to failure with pullout forces applied parallel to the long axis of the screws. Additionally, clinical outcomes of patients who had midshaft clavicle fractures that were surgically repaired were retrospectively identified and compared; 21 patients were treated with 3-screw constructs and 20 with 2-screw constructs. RESULTS: Biomechanically, there were no significant differences for cyclic displacement, stiffness, yield load, or ultimate load between groups. Forces required for screw pullout were considerably higher than physiologic forces experienced by a healing clavicle in vivo. Clinically, there were no significant differences in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant, visual analog scale, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores; complications; or mean time to union. Additionally, we found that the plates used in the 2-screw group were consistently shorter. CONCLUSION: Plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures with 4 cortices of purchase with 2 locking screws demonstrated no significant differences biomechanically when compared with fixation with 6 cortices of purchase and 3 nonlocking screws. Clinically, there were no significant differences in outcomes or complications seen in patients receiving 2- or 3-screw constructs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinical benefits of using the 3-screw construct for plate fixation include decreased surgical exposure, morbidity, and cost, and the use of shorter and noncontoured straight plates eliminates the extra time and technical difficulty associated with matching longer contoured plates to the complex morphology of the clavicle.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5582661
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55826612017-09-11 A Biomechanical and Clinical Comparison of Midshaft Clavicle Plate Fixation: Are 2 Screws as Good as 3 on Each Side of the Fracture? Larsen, Christopher G. Sleasman, Brian Chudik, Steven C. Orthop J Sports Med 117 BACKGROUND: The standard of care for plating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures has been 6 cortices of purchase on each side of the fracture. The use of locking plates and screws may afford equivalent biomechanical strength with fewer cortices of purchase on each side of the fracture. PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical and clinical performance of 3- versus 2-screw constructs for plating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study/cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Lateral fragments of simulated midshaft fractures in 10 pairs of cadaveric clavicles were randomly assigned to plate fixation with either 3 nonlocking screws or 2 locking screws. Cyclic tensile loads were applied along the long axis of the clavicle. The constructs were then loaded to failure with pullout forces applied parallel to the long axis of the screws. Additionally, clinical outcomes of patients who had midshaft clavicle fractures that were surgically repaired were retrospectively identified and compared; 21 patients were treated with 3-screw constructs and 20 with 2-screw constructs. RESULTS: Biomechanically, there were no significant differences for cyclic displacement, stiffness, yield load, or ultimate load between groups. Forces required for screw pullout were considerably higher than physiologic forces experienced by a healing clavicle in vivo. Clinically, there were no significant differences in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant, visual analog scale, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores; complications; or mean time to union. Additionally, we found that the plates used in the 2-screw group were consistently shorter. CONCLUSION: Plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures with 4 cortices of purchase with 2 locking screws demonstrated no significant differences biomechanically when compared with fixation with 6 cortices of purchase and 3 nonlocking screws. Clinically, there were no significant differences in outcomes or complications seen in patients receiving 2- or 3-screw constructs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinical benefits of using the 3-screw construct for plate fixation include decreased surgical exposure, morbidity, and cost, and the use of shorter and noncontoured straight plates eliminates the extra time and technical difficulty associated with matching longer contoured plates to the complex morphology of the clavicle. SAGE Publications 2017-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5582661/ /pubmed/28894757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967117725293 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle 117
Larsen, Christopher G.
Sleasman, Brian
Chudik, Steven C.
A Biomechanical and Clinical Comparison of Midshaft Clavicle Plate Fixation: Are 2 Screws as Good as 3 on Each Side of the Fracture?
title A Biomechanical and Clinical Comparison of Midshaft Clavicle Plate Fixation: Are 2 Screws as Good as 3 on Each Side of the Fracture?
title_full A Biomechanical and Clinical Comparison of Midshaft Clavicle Plate Fixation: Are 2 Screws as Good as 3 on Each Side of the Fracture?
title_fullStr A Biomechanical and Clinical Comparison of Midshaft Clavicle Plate Fixation: Are 2 Screws as Good as 3 on Each Side of the Fracture?
title_full_unstemmed A Biomechanical and Clinical Comparison of Midshaft Clavicle Plate Fixation: Are 2 Screws as Good as 3 on Each Side of the Fracture?
title_short A Biomechanical and Clinical Comparison of Midshaft Clavicle Plate Fixation: Are 2 Screws as Good as 3 on Each Side of the Fracture?
title_sort biomechanical and clinical comparison of midshaft clavicle plate fixation: are 2 screws as good as 3 on each side of the fracture?
topic 117
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5582661/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28894757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967117725293
work_keys_str_mv AT larsenchristopherg abiomechanicalandclinicalcomparisonofmidshaftclavicleplatefixationare2screwsasgoodas3oneachsideofthefracture
AT sleasmanbrian abiomechanicalandclinicalcomparisonofmidshaftclavicleplatefixationare2screwsasgoodas3oneachsideofthefracture
AT chudikstevenc abiomechanicalandclinicalcomparisonofmidshaftclavicleplatefixationare2screwsasgoodas3oneachsideofthefracture
AT larsenchristopherg biomechanicalandclinicalcomparisonofmidshaftclavicleplatefixationare2screwsasgoodas3oneachsideofthefracture
AT sleasmanbrian biomechanicalandclinicalcomparisonofmidshaftclavicleplatefixationare2screwsasgoodas3oneachsideofthefracture
AT chudikstevenc biomechanicalandclinicalcomparisonofmidshaftclavicleplatefixationare2screwsasgoodas3oneachsideofthefracture