Table 5 Statistical analysis (Fisher’s exact test) of union rate in clavicle fracture cohort
From: Are clinical outcomes affected by type of plate used for management of mid-shaft clavicle fractures?
Union rate | n (%) | p value |
|---|---|---|
Age | ||
≤ 30 years (n = 47) | 47 (100%) | 0.12 |
31–50 years (n = 38) | 35 (92.1%) | |
> 50 years (n = 17) | 17 (100%) | |
Sex | ||
Male (n = 74) | 73 (98.6%) | 0.182 |
Female (n = 28) | 26 (92.9%) | |
Mechanism | ||
High energy trauma (n = 24) | 22 (91.7%) | 1.0 |
Low energy trauma (n = 78) | 77 (98.7) | |
Smoking | ||
Yes (n = 19) | 19 (100%) | 1.0 |
No (n = 83) | 80 (96.4%) | |
Open fracture | ||
Yes (n = 1) | 1 (100%) | 1.0 |
No (n = 101) | 98 (97.0%) | |
OTA classification | ||
B1 (n = 33) | 31 (93.9%) | 0.244 |
B2 (n = 69) | 68 (98.6%) | |
Plate used | ||
2.7 mm calcaneal (n = 28) | 27 (96.4%) | 0.883 |
2.7 mm reconstruction (n = 20) | 20 (100%) | |
3.5 mm reconstruction (n = 36) | 34 (94.4%) | |
3.5 mm pre-contoured (n = 8) | 8 (100%) | |
3.5 mm locking compression (n = 10) | 10 (100%) | |
Number of plate holes utilized | ||
5 (n = 2) | 2 (100%) | 0.316 |
6 (n = 9) | 8 (88.9%) | |
7 (n = 14) | 13 (92.9%) | |
8 (n = 42) | 41 (97.6%) | |
9 (n = 32) | 32 (100%) | |
10 (n = 3) | 3 (100%) | |
Post-operative symptoms at 6 weeks | ||
Pain, (n = 17) | 16 (94.1%) | 0.425 |
None (n = 85) | 83 (97.6%) | |