ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2026
Is there a difference in plate positioning for clavicle shaft fractures? A retrospective cohort study of 355 cases.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePlate osteosynthesis is a common procedure for clavicle shaft fractures. The plate can be placed in an anterior, anterior-superior, or superior position. This study aims to evaluate surgical treatment options regarding different plate positions for clavicle shaft fractures and to compare them regarding patient and perioperative characteristics, frequency of use, appearance of callus, complication rates and implant removal.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of patients treated with plate osteosynthesis after clavicle shaft fracture between January 2016 and December 2024 at a Swiss level 1 trauma center was performed. Patients aged ≥ 16 years treated with anterior, anterior-superior or superior plate placement and availability of clinical follow-up data with X-ray were included. Presence of callus was subdivided into early (≤ 6 weeks), intermediate (> 6 to ≤ 26 weeks), and late (> 26 weeks).
resultsA total of 355 cases with a median of 41 years (range 17 to 90 years) (81.7%, n = 290 males and 18.3%, n = 65 females) were analyzed. The most commonly used plate position was anterior (92.4%, n = 328), followed by superior (5.6%, n = 20) and anterior-superior (2%, n = 7). Plate placement had no significant influence on operation time, callus formation, implant removal, or refracture after implant removal. Complications occurred in 6.2% (n = 22) of cases with a trend towards an increased complication rate with anterior-superior plate position (28.6%, n = 2), but the incidence of complications did not differ when comparing only anterior (5.5%, n = 18) and superior plate placement (10%, n = 2).
conclusionAll three plate positions are valid surgical treatments for clavicle shaft fractures as similar results were observed with anterior, anterior-superior and superior plate placement. Further studies, particularly on anterior-superior plate fixation as well as patient reported outcome measures and clinical follow-up, are necessary to achieve optimal long-term surgical results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41817701What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.