Anterior and superior plate positions in diaphyseal clavicle fractures produce similar patient outcomes.

purposeWhile diaphyseal clavicle fractures can be treated with plate fixation on either the superior or anteroinferior aspect of the clavicle, the optimal plate position remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine if anteroinferior vs. superior plating for clavicle fracture fixation leads to better patient outcomes.

methodsA retrospective review of patients who sustained clavicle fractures (OTA/AO 15.2) treated with superior or anteroinferior plating at a tertiary Level I trauma center from 2015 to 2021 was performed. The clinical outcomes of clavicle fractures were compared between groups treated with an anterior versus a superior approach via Mann-Whitney U and Chi-squared tests as appropriate to evaluate for differences in outcomes between the two plate positions.

resultsA total of 315 diaphyseal clavicle fractures were identified. One hundred and forty patients were excluded due to inadequate follow-up. Of the remaining 175 patients, 25 were treated with an anteroinferior approach (14%) and 150 were treated with a superior approach (86%). There were no differences in age, BMI, tobacco use, or substance use between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all). On univariate analysis, there was no difference in rate of union (p = 0.60), nerve injury (p = 0.60), infection (p = 1.0), implant-related irritation (p = 0.42), implant removal (p = 0.26), or revision (p = 1.0) based on approach. Contoured plates had an association with risk of nerve injury (p = 0.04).

conclusionThere are no differences in union, nerve injury, infection, symptomatic implant, or revision rate between anteroinferior and superior clavicle approaches. Plate positioning during diaphyseal clavicle fracture fixation can reasonably be dictated based on surgeon preference and ideal reduction quality.