Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Two popular methods used to treat distal-third clavicle fractures are the traditional hook plate and the anatomically contoured locking plate. No consensus exists on whether one method is more effective than the other. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a traditional hook plate with that of an anatomically contoured locking plate augmented with coracoclavicular fixation in the treatment of distal-third clavicle fractures.
METHODS: Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to either the hook plate group (n = 13) or the locking plate group (n = 17). Follow-up assessments (clinical and radiologic) were performed at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: In both groups, union was achieved in 91% of cases at 6 months and 100% at 12 months. No differences in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley shoulder scores were noted between the hook plate and locking plate groups at 12 months. From 6 to 12 months, DASH scores improved in the hook plate group (P = .007) and Constant-Murley shoulder scores tended to improve (P = .075). Surgical time was longer in the locking plate group than in the hook plate group (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Similar functional outcomes and union rates were achieved in both groups at 12 months postoperatively. However, the improvement in DASH scores in the hook plate group from 6 to 12 months suggests that patients treated with an anatomically contoured locking plate make a quicker recovery than patients treated with a hook plate.
METHODS: Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to either the hook plate group (n = 13) or the locking plate group (n = 17). Follow-up assessments (clinical and radiologic) were performed at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: In both groups, union was achieved in 91% of cases at 6 months and 100% at 12 months. No differences in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley shoulder scores were noted between the hook plate and locking plate groups at 12 months. From 6 to 12 months, DASH scores improved in the hook plate group (P = .007) and Constant-Murley shoulder scores tended to improve (P = .075). Surgical time was longer in the locking plate group than in the hook plate group (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Similar functional outcomes and union rates were achieved in both groups at 12 months postoperatively. However, the improvement in DASH scores in the hook plate group from 6 to 12 months suggests that patients treated with an anatomically contoured locking plate make a quicker recovery than patients treated with a hook plate.
摘要：
背景：用于治疗锁骨远端第三骨折的两种流行方法是传统的钩钢板和解剖学轮廓锁定钢板。对于一种方法是否比另一种方法更有效，没有共识。因此,这项研究的目的是比较传统的钩钢板和解剖轮廓锁定钢板在锁骨远端第三骨折治疗中的疗效。
方法：注册患者被随机分配到钩板组（n=13）或锁定板组（n=17）。术后6个月和12个月进行随访评估（临床和放射学）。
结果：在两组中，91%的病例在6个月和100%的病例在12个月时实现了结合。手臂的残疾没有差异，在12个月时，钩板和锁定板组之间记录了肩和手（DASH）和Constant-Murley肩评分。从6到12个月，钩板组DASH评分改善（P=.007），Constant-Murley肩评分趋于改善（P=.075）。锁定钢板组手术时间长于钩钢板组(P<0.001)。
结论：两组在术后12个月时获得了相似的功能结果和愈合率。然而,钩钢板组的DASH评分从6个月到12个月改善,这表明使用解剖轮廓锁定钢板治疗的患者比使用钩钢板治疗的患者恢复更快.
方法：注册患者被随机分配到钩板组（n=13）或锁定板组（n=17）。术后6个月和12个月进行随访评估（临床和放射学）。
结果：在两组中，91%的病例在6个月和100%的病例在12个月时实现了结合。手臂的残疾没有差异，在12个月时，钩板和锁定板组之间记录了肩和手（DASH）和Constant-Murley肩评分。从6到12个月，钩板组DASH评分改善（P=.007），Constant-Murley肩评分趋于改善（P=.075）。锁定钢板组手术时间长于钩钢板组(P<0.001)。
结论：两组在术后12个月时获得了相似的功能结果和愈合率。然而,钩钢板组的DASH评分从6个月到12个月改善,这表明使用解剖轮廓锁定钢板治疗的患者比使用钩钢板治疗的患者恢复更快.
