Supplementary fixation in multifragmentary midshaft clavicle fractures: do interfragmentary screws or suture cerclage improve outcomes compared with plate-only fixation?
- 1Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, Zurich, CH-8008 Switzerland
- 2Department of Traumatology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
- 3University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Abstract
Background: Clavicle fractures are common injuries. As displaced or multifragmentary midshaft patterns carry a substantial risk of malunion and nonunion with nonoperative treatment, they have contributed to the increasing use of surgical fixation. Modern operative techniques include plate fixation, intramedullary devices, and hybrid strategies to address comminution and improve fragment stability. Supplementary interfragmentary screws and cerclage constructs have been proposed to enhance fragment control and optimize load transfer in multifragmentary fracture patterns. This study aimed to compare three fixation strategies for operatively treated midshaft clavicle fractures managed with plate osteosynthesis: Group IS (interfragmentary screw), Group CA (cerclage augmentation), and Group POF (plate-only fixation), with respect to operative time, complication rates, and potential biological and mechanical differences.
Methods: This retrospective study included patients aged ≥ 16 years who underwent plate fixation for multifragmentary clavicle fractures between 2016 and 2024. Patients were categorized into three groups: Group IS (supplementary interfragmentary screw), Group CA (suture cerclage augmentation), and Group POF (plate-only fixation). Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Callus formation was assessed by three independent observers. Statistical analyses were performed with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Results: A total of 246 patients (mean age 44.5 ± 15.7 years; 89% male) were included. The overall complication rate was 6.9%. Fracture complexity differed significantly between groups (p = 0.0083), with Group IS and Group CA including more complex fracture patterns. Operative time was longest in Group CA (101.1 min), followed by Group IS (90.1 min) and Group POF (82.4 min; p < 0.001). Group IS and Group CA demonstrated lower complication rates (6.0% and 5.5%, respectively) compared with Group POF (16.3%, p = 0.0444). Mechanical complications were absent in Group CA (p = 0.035). Differences in callus formation were observed between groups (p = 0.0059). Refracture rates after implant removal were highest in Group CA (16.0%), with no refractures observed in Group POF (p = 0.064).
Conclusion: While the choice between interfragmentary screws and cerclage is primarily dictated by fracture morphology, our findings suggest that supplementary fixation may be beneficial in multifragmentary fractures. Both strategies were associated with lower complication rates compared with plate-only fixation; however, refracture rates after implant removal may be higher and require cautious interpretation. Further studies are needed to clarify the long-term clinical impact of these strategies.
Level of Evidence: Level III, Retrospective cohort study.
Related
- Addition of a McLaughlin cerclage to locking plate fixation of distal patellar pole fractures reduces interfragmentary displacement – a biomechanical human cadaveric study
- Functional Outcomes of Midshaft Clavicle Fractures Treated With Plate Osteosynthesis: A Prospective Observational Study
- Double Tension Band Wiring Versus Plating for Internal Fixation of Distal Humeral Fractures
- Femoral allograft augmentation in addition to locking plate fixation in displaced proximal humerus fractures: a retrospective case-series
- Transfascial Paraspinal Versus Conventional Open Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation for Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial
BibTeX
@article{barthel2026supplementary,
title = {{Supplementary fixation in multifragmentary midshaft clavicle fractures: do interfragmentary screws or suture cerclage improve outcomes compared with plate-only fixation?}},
author = {Christiane Barthel and Michelle Antonia Hinkelmann and Desiree Schibler and Flurina Frei and Hans-Christoph Pape and Florin Allemann},
journal = {European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery},
year = {2026},
month = jun,
doi = {10.1007/s00068-026-03248-8},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-026-03248-8},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Supplementary fixation in multifragmentary midshaft clavicle fractures: do interfragmentary screws or suture cerclage improve outcomes compared with plate-only fixation?
AU - Christiane Barthel
AU - Michelle Antonia Hinkelmann
AU - Desiree Schibler
AU - Flurina Frei
AU - Hans-Christoph Pape
AU - Florin Allemann
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/06/16
JO - European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
DO - 10.1007/s00068-026-03248-8
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-026-03248-8
AB - Background: Clavicle fractures are common injuries. As displaced or multifragmentary midshaft patterns carry a substantial risk of malunion and nonunion with nonoperative treatment, they have contributed to the increasing use of surgical fixation. Modern operative techniques include plate fixation, intramedullary devices, and hybrid strategies to address comminution and improve fragment stability. Supplementary interfragmentary screws and cerclage constructs have been proposed to enhance fragment control and optimize load transfer in multifragmentary fracture patterns. This study aimed to compare three fixation strategies for operatively treated midshaft clavicle fractures managed with plate osteosynthesis: Group IS (interfragmentary screw), Group CA (cerclage augmentation), and Group POF (plate-only fixation), with respect to operative time, complication rates, and potential biological and mechanical differences. Methods: This retrospective study included patients aged ≥ 16 years who underwent plate fixation for multifragmentary clavicle fractures between 2016 and 2024. Patients were categorized into three groups: Group IS (supplementary interfragmentary screw), Group CA (suture cerclage augmentation), and Group POF (plate-only fixation). Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Callus formation was assessed by three independent observers. Statistical analyses were performed with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: A total of 246 patients (mean age 44.5 ± 15.7 years; 89% male) were included. The overall complication rate was 6.9%. Fracture complexity differed significantly between groups (p = 0.0083), with Group IS and Group CA including more complex fracture patterns. Operative time was longest in Group CA (101.1 min), followed by Group IS (90.1 min) and Group POF (82.4 min; p < 0.001). Group IS and Group CA demonstrated lower complication rates (6.0% and 5.5%, respectively) compared with Group POF (16.3%, p = 0.0444). Mechanical complications were absent in Group CA (p = 0.035). Differences in callus formation were observed between groups (p = 0.0059). Refracture rates after implant removal were highest in Group CA (16.0%), with no refractures observed in Group POF (p = 0.064). Conclusion: While the choice between interfragmentary screws and cerclage is primarily dictated by fracture morphology, our findings suggest that supplementary fixation may be beneficial in multifragmentary fractures. Both strategies were associated with lower complication rates compared with plate-only fixation; however, refracture rates after implant removal may be higher and require cautious interpretation. Further studies are needed to clarify the long-term clinical impact of these strategies. Level of Evidence: Level III, Retrospective cohort study.
SN - 1863-9933
SN - 1863-9941
ER -