Abstract：Objective To compare the clinical effect of reconstructed steel plate and anatomical locking steel plate in treatment of Robinson ⅡB clavicle fracture. Methods Retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of 69 patients with Robinson ⅡB clavicle fracture admitted to our hospital from January 2016 to December 2018, according to the choice of steel plate, they were divided into reconstructed steel plate group (33 cases) and anatomic locking steel plate group (36 cases). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, Constant score of shoulder joint, fracture healing time and incidence of delayed incision healing, bone nonunion and internal plant complications (screw loosening and plate fracture) were compared between the two groups. Results The operation time of the anatomical locking steel plate group was shorter than that of the reconstructed steel plate group, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05). There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P＞0.05). The postoperative fracture healing time in the anatomical locking steel plate group was shorter than that in the reconstructed steel group, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05). There was no significant difference in the Constant score of the shoulder joint between the two groups (P＞0.05). In the reconstructed steel plate group, 1 case of delayed incision healing, 1 case of bone nonunion, 1 case of screw loosening, and 5 cases of steel plate fracture occurred, but no related complications occurred in the anatomical locking steel plate group, the total incidence of complications in the anatomical locking steel plate group was lower than that in the reconstructed steel plate group, the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05). Conclusion Compared with the reconstructed steel plate, the anatomical locking steel plate in the treatment of Robinson ⅡB clavicular fracture has the advantages of stable fixation, fast healing, fewer complications related to the steel plate, which is worthy of clinical recommendation.
Duan X，Zhong G，Cen S，et al.Plating versus intramedullary pin or conservative treatment for midshaft fracture of clavicle：a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J].J Shoulder Elbow Surg，2011，20（6）：1008-1015.
[4]
Lazarides S，Zafiropoulos G.Conservative treatment of fractures at the middle third of the clavicle：The relevance of shortening and clinical outcome[J].J Shoulder Elbow Surg，2006，15（2）：191-194.
[6]
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[J].Arch Orthop Trauma Surg，2015，135（3）：339-344.
[7]
Vander Have KL，Perdue AM，Caird MS，et al.Operative versus nonoperative treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents[J].J Pediatr Orthop，2010，30（4）：307-312.
[8]
Zlowodzki M，Zelle BA，Cole PA，et al.Treatment of acute midshaft clavicle fractures：systematic review of 2144 fractures：on behalf of the Evidence-Based Orthopaedic Trauma Working Group[J].J Orthop Trauma，2005，19（7）：504-507.
[10]
Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society.Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures.A multicenter，randomized clinical trial[J].J Bone Joint Surg Am，2007，89（1）：1-10.
[11]
Iannotti MR，Crosby LA，Stafford P，et al.Effects of plate location and selection on the stability of midshaft clavicle osteotomies：a biomechanical study[J].J Shoulder Elbow Surg，2002，11（5）：457-462.
京公网安备 11010502046607号