ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2026
Which Technique is the Optimal Option for the Treatment of Displaced Far-Lateral (Cho Type IIC) Distal Clavicle Fractures? A Comparative Analysis of Coracoclavicular Fixation Versus Anatomical Locking Plate Fixation.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As achieving stable fixation in unstable far-lateral distal clavicle fractures is challenging, the optimal surgical treatment remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological results of coracoclavicular fixation (CCF) versus anatomical locking plate fixation (ALPF) in patients with Cho type IIC fractures. Methods: Thirty-eight patients who underwent surgical treatment for Cho type IIC fracture were included. Open CCF using a suture button device was performed in 25 patients and ALPF was performed in 13 patients. The mean follow-up period was 35.7 months (range, 12-132 months). Radiographic results were evaluated using serial plain radiographs. Clinical results were evaluated using the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). Results: No significant differences were observed between the CCF and ALPF groups in terms of UCLA score (32.0 vs. 32.1), ASES score (90.6 vs. 91.0), and SSV (90.6% vs. 89.6%). Although significant differences between the 2 groups were observed in the mean coracoclavicular (CC) distance of the affected side at the immediate postoperative period (5.2 mm vs. 9.0 mm) and final follow-up (5.7 mm vs. 9.1 mm), the CC distances between the immediate postoperative period and final follow-up in each group were maintained without significant loss of reduction. In the CCF group, complications occurred in 4 of 25 cases (16.0%) including skin irritation caused by a superior button or knot in 2 cases, nonunion in 1 case, and shoulder stiffness in 1 case. In the ALPF group, complications occurred in 2 of 13 cases (15.4%) including screw pull-out in 1 case and shoulder stiffness in 1 case. Conclusions: Both CCF using a suture button device and ALPF without CC augmentation for type IIC fractures showed satisfactory clinical and radiological results. Both techniques can be recommended as the optimal option that can provide sufficient vertical stability for solid union.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.