Are clinical outcomes affected by type of plate used for management of mid-shaft clavicle fractures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using plate osteosynthesis for midshaft clavicle fractures is often complicated by the prominence of the implant due to the subcutaneous position of the clavicle. Reoperation rates for symptomatic clavicle plate removal have been reported to be as high as 53%. We sought to determine to which degree do clinical outcomes (all cause reoperation rate and rate of fracture union) differ between types of clavicle plates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed using our hospital database for patients treated with ORIF for mid-shaft clavicle fractures (OTA/AO type 15-B). Implants included in this review were 2.7 mm reconstruction plates, 3.5 mm reconstruction plates, 3.5 mm precontoured clavicle plates and 3.5 mm locking compression plates. The primary outcome measure was the all cause reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes compared the rate fracture union, documented infection, hardware failures and clinical symptoms at the surgical site among the various plate types. Data was collected and descriptive statistics were analyzed. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 102 midshaft clavicle fractures treated with ORIF were included in this study. The majority of patients were ≤ 50 years old (83.3%) and male (72.5%). The overall union rate for all plating constructs was 97.1%. We found that age, sex and smoking were not associated with the rate of re-operation. In addition, the fracture classification, type of implant used and number of screws used didn't increase the risk of revision surgery. In addition, more than 50% of patients complaining of pain at 6 weeks post-operatively required a second surgery for removal of hardware. Moreover, there was no association between age, sex, smoking, fracture classification or plate type and the rate of union. Interestingly, clavicle fractures fixed with 3.5 mm reconstruction plates were more likely to have hardware failure due to plastic deformation, whereas 2.7 mm plates were more likely to fail by plate breakage. CONCLUSION: Although different types of implants have different biomechanical properties, no difference in reoperation, union and plate removal rates were found between the various plate types. Future studies with a larger sample size are required to further examine these outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".