File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of radiological and clinical outcomes, complications, and implant removals in anatomically pre-contoured clavicle plates versus reconstruction plates – a propensity score matched retrospective cohort study of 106 patients

TitleComparison of radiological and clinical outcomes, complications, and implant removals in anatomically pre-contoured clavicle plates versus reconstruction plates – a propensity score matched retrospective cohort study of 106 patients
Authors
KeywordsAnatomical plate
Locking plate
Clavicle fracture
Plate fixation
Midshaft clavicle
Issue Date2020
PublisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmusculoskeletdisord/
Citation
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2020, v. 21, p. article no. 413 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Plate fixation is frequently used to treat displaced midshaft clavicular fractures, however the ideal plate choice remains subject to discussion; reconstruction locking compression plates (RLCPs) are cheaper and can be easily contoured, whereas anatomically pre-contoured locking compression plates (ALCPs) are thought to provide better stability and therefore lower rates of mechanical failure. To compare the incidence of mechanical failures, functional and radiological outcomes in patients with midshaft clavicular fractures treated with ALCPs versus RLCPs. Methods: A propensity score matched retrospective cohort study was conducted across two centers. One hundred and six consecutively recruited patients with displaced midshaft clavicular fractures, who were treated with plate fixation and had a minimum follow-up of 6 months, were matched on gender, age, fracture grading, energy of injury, and fracture location. The resulting groups included 53 ALCP-treated fractures and 53 matched controls treated with RLCPs. Results: During a mean follow-up of 20.5 months, there were no implant deformities in the ALCP group whereas the RLCP group had 6 patients (11.3%, p = 0.012) with implant deformities (5 occurrences of plate bending with fracture union, and 1 plate breakage with nonunion). Despite the higher rate of plate deformities in the RLCP group, there were no statistically significant differences in number of patients recovering full shoulder range of motion (ALCP 90.6%, RLCP 88.7%, p = 0.751), incidence of rest pain (ALCP 13.2%, RLCP 9.4%, p = 0.542), or implant removals (ALCP 49.1%, RLCP 56.6%, p = 0.439). Conclusion: ALCPs may be superior to RLCPs in terms of implant stability but appear to produce similar clinical results.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/288119
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 2.2
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.714
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFang, CX-
dc.contributor.authorLiu, R-
dc.contributor.authorYee, DKH-
dc.contributor.authorChau, J-
dc.contributor.authorLau, TW-
dc.contributor.authorChan, R-
dc.contributor.authorWoo, SB-
dc.contributor.authorWong, TM-
dc.contributor.authorFang, E-
dc.contributor.authorLeung, F-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-05T12:08:09Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-05T12:08:09Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2020, v. 21, p. article no. 413-
dc.identifier.issn1471-2474-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/288119-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Plate fixation is frequently used to treat displaced midshaft clavicular fractures, however the ideal plate choice remains subject to discussion; reconstruction locking compression plates (RLCPs) are cheaper and can be easily contoured, whereas anatomically pre-contoured locking compression plates (ALCPs) are thought to provide better stability and therefore lower rates of mechanical failure. To compare the incidence of mechanical failures, functional and radiological outcomes in patients with midshaft clavicular fractures treated with ALCPs versus RLCPs. Methods: A propensity score matched retrospective cohort study was conducted across two centers. One hundred and six consecutively recruited patients with displaced midshaft clavicular fractures, who were treated with plate fixation and had a minimum follow-up of 6 months, were matched on gender, age, fracture grading, energy of injury, and fracture location. The resulting groups included 53 ALCP-treated fractures and 53 matched controls treated with RLCPs. Results: During a mean follow-up of 20.5 months, there were no implant deformities in the ALCP group whereas the RLCP group had 6 patients (11.3%, p = 0.012) with implant deformities (5 occurrences of plate bending with fracture union, and 1 plate breakage with nonunion). Despite the higher rate of plate deformities in the RLCP group, there were no statistically significant differences in number of patients recovering full shoulder range of motion (ALCP 90.6%, RLCP 88.7%, p = 0.751), incidence of rest pain (ALCP 13.2%, RLCP 9.4%, p = 0.542), or implant removals (ALCP 49.1%, RLCP 56.6%, p = 0.439). Conclusion: ALCPs may be superior to RLCPs in terms of implant stability but appear to produce similar clinical results.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmusculoskeletdisord/-
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders-
dc.rightsBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. Copyright © BioMed Central Ltd.-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectAnatomical plate-
dc.subjectLocking plate-
dc.subjectClavicle fracture-
dc.subjectPlate fixation-
dc.subjectMidshaft clavicle-
dc.titleComparison of radiological and clinical outcomes, complications, and implant removals in anatomically pre-contoured clavicle plates versus reconstruction plates – a propensity score matched retrospective cohort study of 106 patients-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailFang, CX: cfang@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailYee, DKH: yeedns@HKUCC-COM.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChau, J: jymchau@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLau, TW: catcher@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChan, R: rkychan2@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailWoo, SB: woosb@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailWong, TM: wongtm@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailFang, E: evanfang@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLeung, F: klleunga@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityFang, CX=rp02016-
dc.identifier.authorityWong, TM=rp01689-
dc.identifier.authorityLeung, F=rp00297-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12891-020-03445-5-
dc.identifier.pmid32600366-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC7325088-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85087397139-
dc.identifier.hkuros314876-
dc.identifier.volume21-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 413-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 413-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000546253500006-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-
dc.identifier.issnl1471-2474-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats