IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0318004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Low-profile double plating versus conventional single plating in midshaft clavicle fractures: A retrospective study and initial experience with this novel technique

Author

Listed:
  • Yannic Lecoultre
  • Bryan van de Wall
  • Bjoern-Christian Link
  • Charlotte Kik
  • Reto Babst
  • Frank Beeres

Abstract

Background: Low-profile double plating seems a viable alternative to conventional single plating for fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures. This study aims to compare the two techniques regarding healing, complications, and removal rate. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patients >16 years that underwent plate fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures between 2020 and 2022 at one trauma-center. Exclusion criteria encompassed pathological or open fractures, refractures and delayed presentation or treatment more than 14 days after the accident. Patients were categorized into two treatment groups: Single plating (Synthes 3.5mm LCP superior / anterior or Synthes 2.7mm VA-LCP superior) and low-profile double plating (2.0 superior combined with either 2.4 or 2.7mm anterior mini-plate). Treatment groups were compared regarding healing, complications, and removal rate. Results: A total of 99 patients were included: 74 in the single plating and 25 in the double plating group. Implant failures within the first three months were comparable in both groups (4.0% double plating versus 2.7% single, p = 0.744, of which one was caused by infection). Low-profile double plating had a significantly lower operation duration (95 versus 111 minutes, p = 0.019). Long-term follow-up data was available in 60 patients in the single plating and 20 in the double plating group. The need for reintervention was significantly lower in the double plating group (n = 5, 25.0% vs. n = 31, 51.7%, p = 0.038). These reinterventions were predominantly caused by implant irritation in both groups (n = 4, 20% double plating versus n = 29, 48.3% single plating, p = 0.026). All fractures healed in both groups. Conclusion: Low-profile double plating attains comparable healing rates as single plating and has a significantly lower risk for re-intervention as well as a shorter operation duration. The lower reintervention rate is mainly explained by a lower incidence of implant irritation in the double plating group.

Suggested Citation

  • Yannic Lecoultre & Bryan van de Wall & Bjoern-Christian Link & Charlotte Kik & Reto Babst & Frank Beeres, 2025. "Low-profile double plating versus conventional single plating in midshaft clavicle fractures: A retrospective study and initial experience with this novel technique," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-10, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0318004
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318004
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0318004&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0318004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0318004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.