Comparing the Efficacy of Anatomical Locked Plate Fixation with Coracoclavicular Ligament Augmentation to Hook Plate Fixation in Treating Distal Clavicle Fractures

OBJECTIVE: Hook plate fixation is the traditional method for treating distal clavicle fractures. However, in recent years, locked plate applications have emerged as a promising treatment method. This study aimed to compare the short‐ and mid‐term clinical efficacy of anatomical locked plate fixation with coracoclavicular ligament augmentation using anchor nails to that of hook plate fixation in treating distal clavicle fractures. METHODS: This was a retrospective single‐center cohort study investigating patients with distal clavicle fractures treated between January 2016 and February 2019 in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University. Fifty‐nine eligible patients who underwent either anatomical locked plate fixation with coracoclavicular ligament augmentation using anchor nails (LPF&CLA group; 20 patients) or clavicle hook plate fixation (CHPF group; 39 patients) were included. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Constant–Murley shoulder scores were used to assess shoulder function. In addition, the coracoclavicular distance between the affected and unaffected shoulders (ΔCC distance) was measured to assess the reduction. Patients were followed up at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The comparisons between the two groups were made using Student's t‐test, chi‐square test, or Fisher's exact test, if appropriate. RESULTS: Preoperative VAS scores were similar in both groups. At 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐up, the VAS score was significantly higher in the CHPF group than in the LPF&CLA group. In contrast, the Constant–Murley shoulder score was significantly lower in the CHPF group than in the LPF&CLA group. When the hook plates were removed, there was no statistical difference in both VAS (0.2 ± 0.4 in LPF&CLA group vs. 0.5 ± 0.5 in CHPF group, p = 0.05) and Constant–Murley shoulder (96.1 ± 3.1 in LPF&CLA group vs. 93.8 ± 5.2 in CHPF group, p = 0.08) scores at the last follow‐up. Postoperatively, the ΔCC distance was 2.37 ± 1.93 mm in the LPF&CLA group and −1.56 ± 1.34 mm in the CHPF group. One year after surgery, ΔCC distance increased to 3.96 ± 1.17 mm in the LPF&CLA group and to −0.89 ± 1.39 mm in the CHPF group. CONCLUSION: For distal clavicle fractures in which the coracoclavicular ligament is disrupted, anatomical locked plate fixation with coracoclavicular ligament augmentation achieved better functional recovery and less pain than hook plate fixation at the 6‐month follow‐up. However, the hook plate provided better reduction throughout the follow‐up period and shoulder pain could be relieved using removal surgery. Therefore, locked plates with coracoclavicular ligament augmentation favors post‐surgery pain relief while harvesting similar functional outcomes to hook plate fixation