Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Although various surgical methods are available for unstable distal clavicle fractures, consensus remains lacking on the optimal technique. Therefore, the present retrospective study aimed to compare the clavicle hook plate and Scorpion Plate® in terms of clinical outcomes and radiological findings for unstable distal clavicle fractures.
Methods: Fifty-seven patients with unstable distal clavicle fractures who underwent treatment using a clavicle hook plate (Group H; 28 patients) or Scorpion Plate® (Group S; 29 patients) were included in the present study. No patients received additional augmentation and all were followed-up for >1 year (mean follow-up, 28 months). Clinical outcomes were operation time, bleeding volume, complications, range of motion (ROM) at 6 months after surgery and final follow-up, and clinical scores (Constant-Murley score and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score). Radiological outcomes assessed were coracoclavicular distance (CCD), difference in CCD between affected and non-affected sides (ΔCCD), and acromioclavicular subluxation ratio (%ACS) from plain X-rays. The χ test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare each outcome.
Results: Complications were seen in 3 shoulders (10.7%) in Group H. ROM was significantly worse in Group H at 6 months postoperatively, but no significant differences between groups were evident at final follow-up. Moreover, no significant differences in clinical outcomes were seen between groups. In terms of radiological results, Group H showed greater improvement in CCD and ΔCCD than Group S. Further, %ACS was significantly worse in Group S.
Conclusions: The clavicle hook plate allows reconstruction of a more anatomical position than the Scorpion Plate®, but carries a greater risk of complications. Conversely, the Scorpion Plate® has a low risk of complications, but acromioclavicular subluxation remains. However, no significant differences in ROM or clinical outcomes were apparent at final follow-up.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2024.06.003 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!