Comparative clinical efficacy of anatomic plate and Kirschner wire internal fixation in midshaft clavicle fractures: A meta‑analysis

Yang,Daihong; Zhou,Jiawei; Wang,Lijun

doi:10.3892/mi.2021.21

Comparative clinical efficacy of anatomic plate and Kirschner wire internal fixation in midshaft clavicle fractures: A meta‑analysis

Authors:
- Daihong Yang
- Jiawei Zhou
- Lijun Wang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics, Chongqing Dazu District People's Hospital, Chongqing 402360l, P.R. China, Department of Orthopedics, People's Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430061, P.R. China
Published online on: November 3, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/mi.2021.21
Article Number: 21
Copyright: © Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Midshaft (mid)‑clavicle fractures are the most common type of clavicle fractures. The Kirschner wire (KW) and anatomic plate (AP) are two commonly used surgical treatment methods for mid‑clavicle fractures, of which the use of an AP appears to be a more effective option. The present study performed a meta‑analysis of a number of published studies on the treatment of mid‑clavicle fractures with APs and KWs, in order to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two treatments, so as to select a more effective treatment approach. The articles were obtained from several databases, including Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. The search period was from database establishment to June, 2021. Research was obtained by two authors who individually searched the aforementioned databases. For controversial studies, decisions were made by two authors (JZ and LW). A total of 20 studies involving 1,739 patients were included in the meta‑analysis, including eight randomized controlled studies and 12 cohort trials. The results of the meta‑analysis suggested that: Compared with the KW group, the AP group exhibited significant differences in incision length [standardized mean difference (SMD)=2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.93‑2.86], constant function score (6 months; SMD=1.59; 95% CI, 1.29‑1.89) and fracture healing time (SMD=‑1.48; 95% CI, ‑2.09 to ‑0.87) (P<0.05). However, no significant differences were observed in the duration of the surgery (SMD=1.19; 95% CI, ‑0.19‑2.57) and intraoperative blood loss (SMD=0.10; 95% CI, ‑3.13‑3.32) (P>0.05). Compared with the KW group, significant differences were observed in post‑operative efficacy (OR, 4.81; 95% CI, 3.10‑7.46) and the incidence of post‑operative complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05‑0.55) in the AP group (P<0.05). On the whole, the AP and KW are two common materials for the clinical surgical treatment of mid‑clavicle fractures. The present study confirmed that there was no significant difference between the two treatments as regards the duration of surgery and intraoperative blood loss; however, for post‑operative shoulder joint function recovery, fracture healing state and healing time, the AP was significantly more effective than the KW. The post‑operative complication rate of the AP group was significantly lower than that of the KW group. However, further prospective, large‑sample randomized controlled studies are required to provide more concrete evidence for verification.

View Figures

View References

1	O'neill BJ, Hirpara KM, O'briain D, Mcgarr C and Kaar TK: Clavicle fractures: A comparison of five classification systems and their relationship to treatment outcomes. Int Orthop. 35:909–914. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Wang N, Zhang H, Yao Q, Wang Y, Dai S and Yang X: TGFBI promoter hypermethylation correlating with paclitaxel chemoresistance in ovarian cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 31(6)2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	d'heurrle A, Le T, Grawe B, Casstevens EC, Edgington J, Archdeacon MT and Wyrick J: Perioperative risks associated with the operative treatment of clavicle fractures. Injury. 44:1579–1581. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Strauss BJ, Carey TP, Seabrook JA and Lim R: Pediatric clavicular fractures: Assessment of fracture patterns and predictors of complicated outcome. J Emerg Med. 43:29–35. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Krishna R and Mongia AK: Outcome of surgical and conservative management of fractures of the middle-third of the clavicle. Indian J Orthop Surg. 1:87–92. 2015.
6	Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 89:1–10. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Denard PJ, Koval KJ, Cantu RV and Weinstein JN: Management of midshaft clavicle fractures in adults. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 34:527–536. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
8	Li YE, Tong Y, Ni QW, Tian NN and Wang CX: A comparative study of anatomical plate and Kirschner wire fixation in the treatment of middle clavicle fractures. Chin Med Herald. 9:162–163. 2012.(In Chinese).
9	Postacchjini F, Gumina S, De Santis P and Albo F: Epidemiology of clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 11:452–456. 2002.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Mckee MD, Pedersen EM, Jones C, Stephen DJ, Kreder HJ, Schemitsch EH, Wild LM and Potter J: Deficits following nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 88:35–40. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Zlowodzki M, Zelle BA, Cole PA, Jeray K and McKee MD: Evidence-Based Orthopaedic Trauma Working Group. Treatment of acute midshaft clavicle fractures: Systematic review of 2144 fractures: On behalf of the evidence-based orthopaedic trauma working group. J Orthop Trauma. 19:504–507. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Stang A: Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis. Eur J Epidemiol. 25:603–605. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ and Altman DG: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 327:557–560. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Lau J, Ioannidis JP and Schmid CH: Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 127:820–826. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Liu HF: The effect of anatomical plate internal fixation on the treatment of 70 cases of middle clavicle fractures and its influence on the shoulder joint function of patients. Chin Minkang Med. 29:49–50. 2017.(In Chinese).
16	Jue LL: Clinical analysis of anatomical locking plate in the treatment of middle clavicle fractures. Mod Health: 149, 2017. kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFDLASN2017&filename=YSXD201704133&uniplatform=NZKPT&v=EFijtKCLk%25mmd2FrRT069bZ7Hbmdx4ZcQUM6nPCQ5Ren%25mmd2BMgSsVyghjsmWDhbCmMjCDpHn.
17	Ren XH: Comparison of treatment methods for middle-aged, young and old patients with fracture of the middle third of the clavicle. Prim Med Forum. 20:4216–4218. 2016.(In Chinese).
18	Guo WQ, Zeng ZH and Liu WJ: Analysis of curative effect of cluster Kirschner wire and anatomical plate in the treatment of middle clavicle fracture. Mod Hosp. 14:53–56. 2014.(In Chinese).
19	Ma ZY: Application of anatomical plate in emergency operation of comminution fracture of the middle clavicle. J Qiqihar Med Coll. 35:1601–1602. 2014.(In Chinese).
20	Qiu YF and Xiao DJ: Analysis of the curative effect of three internal fixation methods in the treatment of middle clavicle fractures. Chin Med Innovation. 10:107–109. 2013.(In Chinese).
21	Wang Q, Yang F and Cui B: Analysis of three methods of intramedullary fixation in the treatment of mid-clavicle fracture. Med Inf. 24:244–245. 2015.(In Chinese).
22	Yang XK: Comparison of the effects of internal fixation with anatomical plates and Kirschner wires on shoulder joint function and complications in patients with middle clavicle fractures. Chin Med Innovation. 14:59–62. 2017.(In Chinese).
23	Chen JG, Liu B and Li ZD: Comparison of the curative effect of three surgical methods for clavicle fracture. Med Theory Pract. 28:3225–3226. 2015.(In Chinese).
24	Cheng J: Clinical research significance of anatomic locking plate in the treatment of mid-clavicle fracture. J Qiqihar Med Coll. 36:2559–2560. 2015.(In Chinese).
25	Li YW: The effect of S-shaped anatomical plate in the treatment of 28 cases of fractures of the middle and outer 1/3 of the clavicle. Contemp Med Essays. 12(50)2014.(In Chinese).
26	Tian WG: Analysis of surgical treatment of unstable middle clavicle fractures. Mod Diagn Treat. 24:2593–2594. 2013.(In Chinese).
27	Zhang WW, Yang JW, Hu XY, Li CJ, Wang B and Ren XH: Surgical treatment of unstable middle clavicle fractures. J Clin Orthop. 15:345–346. 2012.(In Chinese).
28	Wang T, Ye CQ and Chen GF: Comparison of the effect of internal fixation with anatomical steel plate and Kirschner wire in the treatment of middle clavicle fractures. Chin Med Clin. 11:1313–1314. 2011.(In Chinese).
29	Ji SJ, Ning SY, Qiao WS, Zhao Y, Qi X, Li SQ, Yang C and Yang JG: Comparison of treatment methods for middle-aged, young and old patients with fracture of the middle third of the clavicle. Chin J Gerontol. 30:2683–2684. 2010.(In Chinese).
30	Zhang NS: Analysis of curative effect of different internal fixation methods for middle clavicle fractures. Chin J Bone Joint Injury. 25:449–450. 2010.(In Chinese).
31	Lv PC and Du XY: Comparison of internal fixation with anatomical plate and kirschner wire in the treatment of comminution fracture of the middle clavicle. J Clin Orthop. 13(115)2010.(In Chinese).
32	Yang SF, Chen J, PU ZK and Liu CC: Different internal fixation options for middle clavicle fractures. West Chin Med. 24:85–87. 2009.(In Chinese).
33	Bu BX, Zhang J, Shi FM, Cao HY and Ma HS: Comparison of clinical efficacy of three internal fixation methods in the treatment of clavicle fracture. Chin J Orthop Trauma. 2:66–67. 2006.kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2006&filename=ZGZG200602032&uniplatform=NZKPT&v=diBeVwsph777%25mmd2BbgnEjYCKtl%25mmd2B0unz1dsE8AsylI4wbVExhJ9rqAxlj%25mmd2FyAZnqifFEM.