Comparison of 2 Different Fixation Implants for Operative Treatment of Mid-Shaft Clavicle Fractures: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND: This retrospective analysis was designed to compare the outcomes of mid-shaft clavicle fracture operative treatment using bridge combined fixation system (BCFS) versus clavicular locking plate (CLP). MATERIAL/METHODS: Operative surgeries performed between January 2016 and July 2018 were included in the analysis. The surgical internal fixation implants were chosen according to surgeon preference and the choice of patients between the BCFS and CLP. Functional outcomes, fracture union, complications, pain, and patient satisfaction post-operation were assessed at a follow-up of 12 to 24 months. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventeen (217) patients, aged 21–79 years, were operated, 87 using BCFS and 130 using CLP. The operation time of the BCFS group was significantly less than the CLP group (P<0.01). We also found that BCFS group had higher degree of satisfaction (100% vs. 97%, P<0.03) and less VAS scale (0.25±0.18 vs. 0.35±0.21, P<0.001) compared with the CLP group, but the significance could only be obtained during the follow-up at 3 months after surgery. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups when compared for fracture unions, functional scores, or complications. CONCLUSIONS: BCFS significantly reduced the operation time when compared with CLP. No significant differences were observed for functional outcomes, including fracture union and complications, and there was less pain and higher patient satisfaction. Both methods appeared to be safe in terms of complications. However, the effectiveness and safety of BCFS in treating comminuted multi-fragmentary mid-shaft clavicle fractures (AO/OTA 15-2C classification) need further confirmation.