Operative Treatment for Midshaft Clavicle Fractures in Adults: A 10-Year Study Conducted in a Korean Metropolitan Hospital

Abstract

Purpose: While all midshaft clavicle fractures have traditionally been treated with conservative measures, recent operative treatment of displaced, communited midshaft clavicle fractures has become more common. Though a recent increase in operative treatment for midshaft clavicle fractures, we have done the operative methods in limited cases. The aim of this study is to present indications, operative techniques and outcomes of the experienced cases that have applied to this limited group over the previous 10 years.Methods: This study consists of a retrospective review of radiological and clinical data from January of 2005 to July of 2015. Operative criteria for midshaft clavicle fractures having considerable risk of bone healing process were 4 groupsa floating shoulder, an open fracture, an associated neurovascular injury, and a nonunion case after previous treatment.Results: The study consisted of 18 patients who had operative treatment for midshaft clavicle fractures in adults. The most common surgical indication was a floating shoulder (10 cases, 55.6%), followed by nonunion (5 cases, 27.8%), an associated neurovascular injury (4 cases, 22.2%), and open fracture (3 cases, 16.7%). All cases were treated by open reduction and internal fixation in anterosuperior position with reconstruction plate or locking compression plate. Bone union was achieved in all cases except 1 case which was done bone resection due to infected nonunion. Mean bone union period was 19.5 weeks. There were no postoperative complications, but still sequelae in 4 cases of brachial plexus injury. Conclusion:We have conducted an open reduction and internal fixation by anterosuperior position for midshaft clavicle fractures in very limited surgical indications for last 10 years. Our treatment strategy for midshaft clavicle fractures showed favorable radiological results and low postoperative complications. [ J Trauma Inj 2016; 29: 105-115 ]