RESUMEN
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). CONCLUSION: 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.
