A biomechanical comparison of four different fixation methods for midshaft clavicle fractures

Clavicle fractures may occur in all age groups, and 70%–80% of clavicle fractures occur in the midshaft. Many methods for treating midshaft clavicular fractures have been reported and remain controversial. To provide some guidance for clinical treatment, 30 artificial polymethyl methacrylate models of the clavicle were sewn obliquely at the midshaft to simulate the most common type of clavicular fractures, and the fracture models were divided into five groups randomly and were fixed as follows: the reconstruction plates were placed at the superior position of the fracture model (R-S group), the reconstruction plates were placed at the anteroinferior position of the fracture model (R-AI group), the locking plates were placed at the superior position (L-S group), the locking plates were placed at the anteroinferior position (L-AI group); and the control models were unfixed (control group). The strain gauges were attached to the bone surface near the fracture fragments, and then, the biomechanical properties of the specimens were measured using the compression test, torsion test and three-point bending test. The results showed that plate fixation can provide a stable construct to help with fracture healing and is the preferred method in the treatment of clavicle fractures. The locking plate provides the best biomechanical stability when placed at the anteroinferior position, and this surgical method can reduce the operation time and postoperative complications; thus, it would be a better choice in clinical practice.