Meta · The meta-analysis results showed union time, surgery time, incision length, hospital stay and infection rate were less in the intramedullary fixation group than in the plate

�� 20 � � 22 � 20160527 �

Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research May 27, 2016 Vol.20, No.22

�

ISSN 2095-4344 CN 21-1581/R CODEN: ZLKHAH

3337

��

www.CRTER.org

��1991 ��

��

��

��

!"�#$%&�'

()*+,

-./01234��

�5�6�789��

��

&�� 402160

��:R318

��:B

��:2095-4344

(2016)22-03337-08

��2016-03-29

http://WWW.crter.org

�

��

�

�� Meta��

�

��

�

� �� (�� 402160)

�� . �� Meta ![J]."#$%

&'()�2016�20(22):3337-3344.

DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2016.22.020 ORCID: 0000-0002-2067-4331(��)

��

��

�� !"#$%&8'()*+,-.��

*+,-./012+,-3�456789:.;<=>3�?@ABCDEFG�� !��

HIJKLMN� �OPQRSTUHI.VWXYZ[\3]^_àS�bcbd!efghL

MN� �ij�k!MN� "#lmnopq+,rsq+,�opq+,$%�,oprtuo

p3�sq+,$%sqv.Knowlesv.Rockwoodvrw2v3`

Meta��7xyz{e!"-|}~!d�DE��r�%��!��c�

�DE!��4567��c��!�� ¡DE��!¢B£¤¥¦7§¨

!��©ª�7�«B¬�!d®¯DE!��nDE|°��±²³{!´µ¶�·y¸¹!z{

e"-|d�DE��ºz.»¼.,�!©I��`

��

��MN"#¶��opq+,½sq+,¾B¿À�ÁÂ�ijÃmÄÅÆÇ!ÈÉÊ

eÉËcÌÍÎÏ¢«MN"#!5Ð6`

��ÑÒopq+,rsq+,ÓÔ��!ÕÖ �`

��×y{ØÙÚÛ Cochrane Library.PubMed.Embase.OVID.ÜÝÞßÊe§¨àËá(CBM).

ÜÝâãäå§àËá(CNKI).æ"rçèàËáÜ�opq+,rsq+,ÓÔ��!éÙ|ê

ëì�� RevMan 5.3íîïðñò§¨!ó�ÌÍ�ôy Stata 13.0íî��Meta��`

��@õñò 8öéÙ|êDE�÷ 527øùf`Meta��FG�sq+,úHIûü.

MNûü.:ýþ�.��ûü�:ý��J��Lopq+,ú(P < 0.05)�ÎúVWXYZÌ�.

¶�YZÌ�.��¢HI��"ÑÒ�8F�¤ �(P < 0.05)`��G�ij!ÉË�

�sq+,7� ��Ä��!"-`

� !�

�*+,-.�+,-.��.��.��.��/.01.234567.Meta !

"�!�

��.��8.9:;<.$%&'

#$%&�

=>?@A*<BC()DE(KJ1500232)

��

��

��. �� Meta ��

P.O. Box 10002, Shenyang 110180 www.CRTER.org

3338

www.CRTER.org

Qiu Hao, Studying for

master’s degree,

Department of

Orthopedics, Yongchuan

Hospital, Chongqing

Medical University,

Chongqing 402160, China

Corresponding author:

Zhang Ming-hua, Master,

Chief physician, Associate

professor, Department of

Orthopedics, Yongchuan

Hospital, Chongqing

Medical University,

Chongqing 402160, China

Plate fixation versus intramedullary fixation for clavicle fractures: a meta-analysis

Qiu Hao, Lu Min-peng, Luan Fu-jun, Wei Zhi-hui, Ma Ji-kun, Zhang Ming-hua (Department of Orthopedics,

Yongchuan Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 402160, China)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Plate fixation or intramedullary fixation for clavicle fractures has remained a matter of

debate. At present, there is a need for a higher level of evidence to evaluate the advantages and

disadvantages of two different surgical methods.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical efficacy of intramedullary fixation versus plate fixation in the treatment

of clavicle fractures.

METHODS: We conducted a computerized search of the electronic databases like Cochrane Library,

PubMed, Embase, OVID, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP for relevant randomized controlled trials on plate

fixation or intramedullary fixation for clavicle fractures. The quality of the included studies was

independently assessed with RevMan 5.3 software. The meta-analysis was performed in Stata 13.0.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Eight randomized controlled trials with 527 patients were included in

this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed union time, surgery time, incision length,

hospital stay and infection rate were less in the intramedullary fixation group than in the plate fixation

group (P < 0.05). No significant difference in shoulder function score, upper limb function score,

fracture nonunion and refracture was determined between the two groups (P < 0.05). The current

evidences suggested that intramedullary fixation is the optimum choice in the treatment of clavicle

fractures.

Subject headings: Fractures, Bone; Internal Fixators; Evidence-Based Medicine; Tissue Engineering

Funding: the Science and Technology Research Project of Chongqing Municipal Education Committee,

No. KJ1500232

Cite this article: Qiu H, Lu MP, Luan FJ, Wei ZH, Ma JK, Zhang MH. Plate fixation versus intramedullary

fixation for clavicle fractures: a meta-analysis. Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu. 2016;20(22):

3337-3344.

0 �� Introduction

��

2.6%�5%

[1-2]

��

��8 !"#$%&'��#$%

&'()*+$%&,

[3-5]

-./�012'345

6, 789�:;<=> ��?@A

BCDE�� FGHIJKL?@'MNOPQR

S,TUV

[6-7]

�WJ�XYXZ[\]^CDE�

� _`�DE��abcdef$%gh

f$% def$%��%degijde, h

f$%��hfk'Knowlesk'Rockwoodkgl+

k,�

mndef$%o�pqrstuvwxyz

{f$%

[8- 9]

|}C~\��PQ�� 7�C

��Z 12� E�IJ��'2��,

TUV�A��

[10-12]

�hf$%o8��

�� |}C��?@ E�2��

�U�A�B 7hf$%HIJ��I ¡~

\�¢

[13-14]

�

£¤;<¥¦Cochrane Meta§¨�& ©2015

ª10«¬`NCdef$%hf$%®w��

¯°©±²³��´µg¶· �¸Qc¹º»4¼

½¾¿À[¿Á�

1�� Data and methods

1.1 ��ÂÃ°´µCochrane Library'

PubMed'Embase'OVID'ÄÅ�ÆÀ[ÇÈÉÁÊ

(CBM)'ÄÅ�ËÌ�ÇÉÁÊ(CNKI)'Í�gÎÏÉ

ÁÊ ́ µÐÑÒcjÊÓ2015ª10«�c¼�Ô�A

©ÕNÇÈÖ×ÇÈ��ØÙÔÚ�ÄÇ´µÛ��

��'de'hf$%'¯°©±²³ , Ü

Ç´µÛ��clavicle fracture'plate'intramedullary'

randomized controlled trial ,�

1.2 ��

��ÝÞ;<ßàc¯°©±²³(RCT) Ç

á�Ñ âã�Ñ�ä;<©åc��~\�

æçèéê§ëcdef$%ghf$% def$

%��%egije, hf$%��hfk'

Knowlesk'Rockwoodkgl+k,�ì¯íÐîï

12ð«�

��. �� Meta ��


3339

www.CRTER.org

��

�� !�

"#$�%�

1.3 �� 2&'(�)*+,-./01�

23�4-56789:;<=-.>?@ABC5D

EFGHIJK�LMN3O/PQ�RSTCochrane

UVW/XYZ['\;<]=78��>?^_'

(�'(àbcOd�efFgOh/ijkFgO

�/lmknh/opk��qr/ !ksCt

�%��kuvXYwx�

1.4 ��y3'(z;{|}~��'F�

��'F��

��

1.5 � �� 78-./^_'()*RevMan

5.3�� 5RSStata 13.0��>?MetaF��)*

I

2

��>?�^��5�I

2

< 50%�5��78��

�� ¡^5RS¢£¤¥¦�k§¨5�I

2

> 50%

�5RSef¤¥¦��=©F�ª_Ct§=«[�

(RR)¬u95%CIV��®¯_k=°±ª_Ct;

<²³q´(SMD)¬u95%CIV��®¯_�)*µ

¶·w'\¸�XY�

2��Results

2.1 �� )*qr¹�º�uv»x�º

¼-.517½5¾#¿5)*+,-0�23ÀB¼14

½-.5)*+,4-ÁÂ788½ef=Ã��

[15-22]

5

uÄ7½�Å--.

[16-22]

51½�Ä--.

[15]

5Æ527�

��Ç-.BCÈÉ¬��Q�

��

�1578-.ÊË

ÌLQ�

��

�1�

2.2 �� ÍrCochraneUVW/X

YZ['\;<5=78/8c��>?^_'(�7

8��ÎÏXYÐÑÒ�Q�

��

�2578��^_'(¬

Z['\Q�

��

�3�

� 1 ��

Table 1 Basic characteristics of the included studies

�� /�(n) ��(�) ��(�)

��

Lee 2008

�� !"# 20/12 37/19 28.2 40.1 > 12

Ferran 2010

�� $� �� !"# 13/2 14/3 35.4 23.8 > 12

Assobhi 2011

�� %� �� !"# 17/2 16/3 32.6±5.9 30.3±4.8 > 12

Narsaria 2014

�� &' �� !"# 26/6 24/9 40.2±11.2 38.9±9.1 > 24

Rao 2014

�� !"# 26/14 25/15 35.6 34.2 > 12

Andrade 2015

�� () �� !"# 28/5 19/7 31.2±12.2 28.3±9.4 > 12

Meijden 2015

�� *+ �� !"# 53/5 60/2 38.4±14.6 39.6±13.2 > 12

Zehir 2015

�� ,-. �� !"# 12/9 14/10 32.38±8.41 33.17±8.6 > 12

��(n=8)

��

��(n=517)

��

��(n=0)

��(n=413)

�� !"#$%

&'��()(n=399)

*+��(n=14)

,-.��/�#$%

0123456(n=1)7

89&:;(n=5)

��<��(n=8)

� 1 ��

Figure 1 Flow chart of literature screening

� 2 ��

Figure 2 Proportion of bias of the included studies

��. �� Meta ��


3340

www.CRTER.org

2.3 Meta��

2.3.1 �� 6��

��

[16-21]

��

(I

2

=85.9%)�� !"#��$%&'(�)*

��+,��-./�0$�1�23

(SMD=0.01�95%CI4�0.55�0.57)�5�

��

�4�

2.3.2 67�� 3��67�

��

[16�21-22]

�� 8��

(I

2

=0)��9: !"#��$%&'(�)*��

+,67��-./�0�1�23(SMD=0.04�

95%CI4�0.22�0.31)�5�

��

�5�

2.3.3 ;'<= �� 6�>?�;'<

=

[15-17�19-20�22]

�@�2�A�BCDE4%&FG

[17�20]

�

)*��2�� 8��(I

2

=0)�+,=;'<=-

./� �1�23(SMD=�0.67�95%CI4�1.06H

�0.27)�5�

��

�6�@�3�A�BIDE4%&FG

[15-16�22]

�

)*��3�� 8��(I

2

=0)�+,=;'<=-

./� �1�23(SMD=�0.47�95%CI4�0.77 H

�0.17)�5�

��

�7�@�1�A�BJDE4%&FG

[19]

�

)*��KLM9:NOM9:;'<=-./�0

�1�23(92.7±21.5�84.8±19.1�P=0.26)�

� 3 ��

Figure 3 Quality evaluation and risk assessment of the

included studies

� 4 �� !

"�

Figure 4 Forest map of Constant-Murley score of plate fixation

and intramedullary fixation for clavicle fractures

�� (SMD=0.01�95%

CI�#0.55#0.57)�

� 5 ��$%�� !"�

Figure 5 Forest map of upper limb function score of plate

fixation and intramedullary fixation for clavicle fractures

�� (SMD=0.04�

95%CI�#0.22#0.31)�

� 6 ��&'()(*) !"�

Figure 6 Forest map of healing time (month) of plate fixation


�� (SMD=#0.67�

95%CI�#1.06!#0.27)�

� 7 ��&'()(+) !"�

Figure 7 Forest map of healing time (week) of plate fixation


�� (SMD=#0.47�

95%CI�#0.77!#0.17)�

��. �� Meta ��


3341

www.CRTER.org

2.3.4 PQ<= �� 7�>?�PQ<

=

[15-17�19-22]

�R@�2�STUVW

[16�20]

�XY5�

��$%&'(

[15�17�19�21-22]

��

�� (I

2

=93.9%)�� !"#��$

%&'(�)*��+,PQ<=-./� �1�2

3(SMD=�1.79�95%CI4�2.80H�0.77)�5�

��

�8�

2.3.5 Z[\] �� 3�>?�Z[\

]

[17�19-20]

�R^ 2�_`�VWaST

[17�19]

��

�� (I

2

=57.5%)��

!"#��$%&'(�)*��+,Z[\]-./

� �1�23(SMD=�3.87�95%CI4�4.83H�2.92)�

5�

��

�9�

2.3.6 bc<= �� 3�>?�bc<

=

[17�20�22]

�R^ 2�_`�VWaST

[17�22]

��

�� 8��(I

2

=0)��9: !

"#��$%&'(�)*��+,bc<=-./�

�1�23(SMD=�1.25�95%CI4�1.72H�0.77)�

5�

��

�10�

2.3.7 deU;' �� 5�>?�deU;

'

[16�17�19-21]

�� 8��

(I

2

=0)��9: !"#��$%&'(�)*��

+,deU;'-./�0�1�23(RR=0.75�

95%CI40.23�2.49)�5�

��

�11�

2.3.8 Z[fg �� 7�>?�Z[fg

[16-22]

�

�� 8��(I

2

=0)��9:

!"#��$%&'(�)*��+,Z[fg-.

/� �1�23(RR=0.26�95%CI40.09�0.76)�5

�

��

�12�hiEgger��j��aklmn�op

q)*��0klmn�5�

��

�13�

2.3.9 rde �� 4�>?�rdeak

s

[16-17�20-21]

�� 8��

(I

2

=0)��9: !"#��$%&'(�)*��

+,rde-./�0�1�23(RR=0.39�95%CI

� 8 ��,-() !"�

Figure 8 Forest map of operation time of plate fixation and

intramedullary fixation for clavicle fractures

��"#�� (SMD=#1.79�95%CI

�#2.80!#0.77)�

� 9 ��./01 !"�

Figure 9 Forest map of incision length of plate fixation and


��$%&'�� (SMD=#3.87�95%CI

�#4.83!#2.92)�

� 10 ��23() !"�

Figure 10 Forest map of hospitalization time of plate fixation


��()�� (SMD=#1.25�95%CI

�#1.72!#0.77)�

� 11 ��4&' !"�

Figure 11 Forest map of fracture nonunion of plate fixation


��*+,�� (RR=0.75�95%CI

� 0.23#2.49)�

��. �� Meta ��


3342

www.CRTER.org

40.11�1.44)�5�

��

�14�

3��Discussion�

3.1 �� Meta�t)*��YuQv

��wxyz�KLM9:NOM9:a{|}

~��Zhu �

[23]

a Meta �t)*�� 12

�C<�OM9:a��uKLM9:�

��)*U��Andrade-Silva �

[16]

��t

�KLM9:NOM9:�}�ddeaQv��

�� 12 �C�)*��+,=/�0$%

�23(91.7±9.3�91.8±8.8�P=0.937)�van der Meijden

�

[21]

�)*�� 12 �C<�KLM9:NO

M9:Qv��0$%�/�(99.2�91.3)�

��a��Qv�� 6�CN 12�

C<�KLM9:NOM9:aQv67��

��N��0 �

$%�/�

[16�18�20-22]

�¡¢�E£¤4KLM9:N

OM9:¥¦§~�a��)*�

Meta�t)*��KLM9:~-�OM9:

� PQ<=¨�Z[©�bc<=¨�Z[fgª«�

;'<=¨�¬�®Ts¯°��KLM9:-

OM9:±²³�U´µ¶·¸¹º�°±³

[24-25]

�R

KLM9:_à²³M9:(U�: »udea

;'��¥�¼½¾KLM9:¿À±\;'<=a

Á¡��ÂklaÃ$�Ä· Meta �t)*

~�

[23�26- 28]

�Meta�t)*��QvdeU;'

·rdeÅÆ+,/�0�1�23�Zhu�

[23]

aMeta

�t)*��KLM9:NOM9:ardeksª

-./�0�1�23��¢Ç�)*~��

Zhang�

[28]

a Meta�t)*��KLM9:~-�

OM9:ksrdeaÈª±«�½¾U8)*aÁ¡

¥�¼¡4Zhang�

[28]

aMeta�t��&ÉÊ�

��Ëu¢Ç Meta �tÌÍ�&.©�¡¢�)

*¥�ÎÏ��:aÐÑ��ÒvÓ¿À�&~�a�

�&a��YÔÕ��Ö×Ø�

Ù�Ú6'(aÛÜ��a��Ý�t��

@ÞÛÜßàá&�âãUä�åæ;'�M9:çè

Nés�êë��¢Ç�ì �Ä��ÛÜ�¼¡4

��STUVíîïð~�ST�Assobhi�

[17]

N Lee �

[19]

�)*ñ��KLM9:±ò´½¾

és�êë��)*��KLM9:NOM9

:�M9:çèNóôâãUäÅÆ0$%�/��R

OM9:¥ �õöQ�àá&

[17� 20-22]

�van der

Meijden�

[21]

a��YÔ�>?�åæ;'�R)*

��+,=0åæ;'÷£�¡¢øù�KLM9:~

-�OM9:� àá&ö�êë©�¬�Wijdicks

� 12 ��./56 !"�

Figure 12 Forest map of wound infection of plate fixation and


��$%-.�� (RR=0.26�95%CI

� 0.09#0.76)�

� 13 789: !"�

Figure 13 Forest map of publication bias

� 14 ��;�� !"�

Figure 14 Forest map of refracture of plate fixation and


��/*+�� (RR=0.39�95%CI�

0.11#1.44)�

��. �� Meta ��


3343

www.CRTER.org

�

[29]

ÉÊ��t� 90ú�ddea÷£��û��K

LNü�OMý9:��)*�6þ)×~��

Chen �

[30]

ÉÊ��t 141 ú�ddea÷£�Î§

à~�a)*�

3.2 �� Ï�Ú�ÐÑ��ì

��Ä�:aM9:¯�úßKLM9:��

:LNL��OM9:��OMý�Knowlesý�

Rockwood ýN��ý��)* �<¿��U

8a��ÙÜ�·��<=UV��¾�¥�

�½¾�:a��Ëu�ÄÛÜ·ST�#U

V��¾�A§¥Ú'(�taÛÜ�1õö��

��Å�a�s��Å�a��

��a !�"%ÅÆÏ�~!aï#�A§�

��&$%U��&��.ö�Ì'Í�&©�

(6)þ�*�aØTl Yu�ddea÷£�

�Qv��ÅÆ�KLM9:NOM9:§¦§

~�a *�ROM9:� +Z©�PQ<=¨�à

á&ö�Z[fgª«�PQêë©�¬�¡¢E£

¤4YuPQ�}�dde�OM9:¼�,± a

Q-�Ëu�a�.ö�Ì'Í�&.©�)ÚÒ

vÓ.¿À�&~�a��&a��YÔ �Õ��

Ö�Ø6þ)×�

��

��

�� !"#$%&�'

()*+,-."/01%23456+,789:;

<"#$%=>?@78+ABCDEFGHIJ"KL

M#$N+"��(OP�

��QRST+,UVWXYZ[�

�� \]^_`Z[ab�

��+,cdefgh CNKI ijk+Alm

noBC 3 pq�

��+,grasRCtOuvwxtO"y

z{|}~��

��@�! ��+�c��

�C��*��+�]^��%��(��.�

��)��^�{f��W�6� %I¡ ¢£"

T¤¥¦p�

��+,cde§3f�¨©��ª«¬®

¯d«VW°±�

4 �� References

[1] Brin YS,Palmanovich E,Dolev E,et al.Displaced

mid-shaft clavicular fractures: is conservative

treatment still preferred?Isr Med Assoc J.2014;16(12):

748-752.

[2] Lechler P,Sturm S,Boese CK,et al.Surgical

complications following ESIN for clavicular mid-shaft

fractures do not limit functional or patient-perceived

outcome.Injury.2015. pii: S0020-1383(15)00747-0.

doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.11.025. [Epub ahead of

print]

[3] ��,��,��,.��

��[J].�� !", 2013,21(20):

2092-2094.

[4] Fuglesang HF,Flugsrud GB,Randsborg PH,et

al.Radiological and functional outcomes 2.7 years

following conservatively treated completely displaced

midshaft clavicle fractures.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.

2016;136(1):17-25.

[5] Ersen A,Atalar AC,Birisik F,et al.Comparison of simple

arm sling and figure of eight clavicular bandage for

midshaft clavicular fractures: a randomised controlled

study. Bone Joint J.2015;97-B(11):1562-1565.

[6] Robinson CM,Court-Brown CM,McQueen MM,et

al.Estimating the risk of nonunion following

nonoperative treatment of a clavicular fracture.J Bone

Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(7):1359-1365.

[7] McKee MD,Pedersen EM,Jones C,et al.Deficits

following nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft

clavicular fractures.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2006;88(1):

35-40.

[8] #$.��%��&':()*+,-�.-/012

345[J].��6789��, 2014,18(53):8646-8650.

[9] :�;,<=>,?*.@A*BCT�D+&'�E

F��GHIJKL[J].��6789��, 2015,

19(21):3414-3418.

[10] Fridberg M,Ban I,Issa Z,et al.Locking plate

osteosynthesis of clavicle fractures: complication and

reoperation rates in one hundred and five consecutive

cases.Int Orthop. 2013;37(4):689-692.

[11] Liu PC,Hsieh CH,Chen JC,et al.Infection After Surgical

Reconstruction of a Clavicle Fracture Using a

Reconstruction Plate: A Report of Seven

Cases.Kaohsiung J Med Sci.2008;24(1):45-49.

[12] Liu GD,Tong SL,Ou S,et al.Operative versus

non-operative treatment for clavicle fracture: a

meta-analysis.Int Orthop.2013;37(8):1495-1500.

[13] Wang YC,Fu YC,Chou SH,et al.Titanium Elastic Nail

versus plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle

fractures: A retrospective comparison study Kaohsiung

J Med Sci. 2015;31(9):473-479.

��. �� Meta ��


3344

www.CRTER.org

[14] Denard PJ,Koval KJ,Cantu RV,et al.Management of

midshaft clavicle fractures in adults. Am J Orthop

(Belle Mead NJ).2005;34(11):527-536.

[15] MNO,MPQ,RS,.T�UVWXYZ[\D�()

*+��]^��/�_[J].àbcd3,2014,

15(10):34-36.

[16] Andrade-Silva FB,Kojima KE,Joeris A,et al.Single,

superiorly placed reconstruction plate compared with

flexible intramedullary nailing for midshaft clavicular

fractures: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.J

Bone Joint Surg Am.2015;97(8):620-626.

[17] Assobhi JE. Reconstruction plate versus minimal

invasive retrograde titanium elastic nail fixation for

displaced midclavicular fractures.J Orthop Traumatol.

2011;12(4):185-192.

[18] Ferran NA,Hodgson P,Vannet N,et al.Locked

intramedullary fixation vs plating for displaced and

shortened mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a randomized

clinical trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.2010;19(6):

783-789.

[19] Lee YS,Huang HL,Lo TY,et al.Surgical treatment of

midclavicular fractures: a prospective comparison of

Knowles pinning and plate fixation.Int Orthop. 2008;

32(4):541-545.

[20] Narsaria N,Singh AK,Arun GR,et al.Surgical fixation of

displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: elastic

intramedullary nailing versus precontoured plating.J

Orthop Traumatol. 2014;15(3):165-171.

[21] van der Meijden OA,Houwert RM,Hulsmans M,et

al.Operative treatment of dislocated midshaft clavicular

fractures: plate or intramedullary nail fixation? A

randomized controlled trial.J Bone Joint Surg Am.

2015;97(8):613-619.

[22] Zehir S,Zehir R,Sahin E,et al.Comparison of novel

intramedullary nailing with mini-invasive plating in

surgical fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.2015;135(3):339-344.

[23] Zhu Y,Tian Y,Dong T,et al.Management of the

mid-shaft clavicle fractures using plate fixation versus

intramedullary fixation: an updated meta-analysis.Int

Orthop. 2015;39(2):319-328.

[24] Chen Y,Yang Y,Ma X,et al.A biomechanical comparison

of four different fixation methods for midshaft clavicle

fractures.Proc Inst Mech Eng H.2016;230(1):13-19.

[25] Nuzzo MS,Adamson GJ,Lee TQ,et al.Biomechanical

Comparison of Fracture Risk Created by 2 Different

Clavicle Tunnel Preparations for Coracoclavicular

Ligament Reconstruction.Orthop J Sports Med.2014;

2(11):2325967114555478.

[26] Houwert RM,Wijdicks FJ,Steins Bisschop C,et al.Plate

fixation versus intramedullary fixation for displaced

mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a systematic review. Int

Orthop.2012;36(3):579-585.

[27] Barlow T,Beazley J,Barlow D.A systematic review of

plate versus intramedullary fixation in the treatment of

midshaft clavicle fractures.Scott Med J. 2013;58(3):

163-167.

[28] Zhang B,Zhu Y,Zhang F,et al.Meta-analysis of plate

fixation versus intramedullary fixation for the treatment

of mid-shaft clavicle fractures.Scand J Trauma Resusc

Emerg Med.2015;23:27.

[29] Wijdicks FJ,Houwert M,Dijkgraaf M,et al.Complications

after plate fixation and elastic stable intramedullary

nailing of dislocated midshaft clavicle fractures: a

retrospective comparison.Int Orthop.2012;36(10):

2139-2145.

[30] Chen YF,Wei HF,Zhang C,et al.Retrospective

comparison of titanium elastic nail (TEN) and

reconstruction plate repair of displaced midshaft

clavicular fractures.J Shoulder Elbow Surg.2012;21(4):

495-501.

Documents

Meta · The meta-analysis results showed union time, surgery time, incision length, hospital stay and infection rate were less in the intramedullary fixation group than in the plate