Clavicle ORIF (Midshaft & Distal)
Surgical technique guide for Clavicle ORIF covering midshaft (Allman Group I) and distal (Neer IIA/IIB) fractures - FRCS exam preparation
Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team
Editorial maintenance, source checking, and correction workflow • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team
Anterior/superior plating (midshaft) | Distal plate / hook plate (distal) | intermediate
Critical Danger Structures
Supraclavicular Nerves
Location: Branches of C3-C4 from cervical plexus, cross the clavicle obliquely from posterior to anterior. Medial, intermediate and lateral branches cross at different levels. Course superficially in subcutaneous fat over the bone.
Risk: Cutaneous numbness over anterior chest and lateral shoulder — nearly universal with transverse incision. Warn patients preoperatively that anterior chest numbness below the scar is expected and typically partial/temporary. Longitudinal skin incision is sometimes used to minimise branch transection. Do not confuse postoperative numbness for brachial plexus injury.
Subclavian Vessels & Brachial Plexus
Location: Subclavian artery and vein and the brachial plexus pass immediately posterior and inferior to the clavicle. At the medial third the subclavian vein is within 5-10mm of bone. Displacement of medial fragments posteriorly in high-energy fractures can impinge on or lacerate these structures.
Risk: Life-threatening haemorrhage if subclavian artery or vein damaged during drilling, plating, or reduction manoeuvres. Never pass a drill blindly through the posterior cortex at the medial third. Protect posterior cortex with a curved instrument (Hohmann or custom) during drilling. If pulsatile bleeding occurs intraoperatively, compress, call for vascular surgery, do not explore blindly.
Superior vs Anteroinferior Plate Position
Biomechanics: The clavicle is loaded in bending — superior surface is the tension side. Anatomically anteroinferior plating (along the inferior surface directed anteriorly) converts the plate to a tension band construct and is biomechanically superior (greater stiffness, load to failure).
Trade-off: Anteroinferior approach requires more dissection and risks subclavian structures posteriorly. Superior plating is technically simpler, more commonly performed in most centres, and has equivalent published union rates but higher reoperation for symptomatic hardware (plate prominence under thin skin). Know both approaches and their respective evidence for the exam.
Neer Classification — Distal Clavicle
Type I: Lateral to coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments, minimal displacement, ligaments intact — stable, treat non-operatively.
Type IIA: Fracture medial to both conoid and trapezoid CC ligaments, both intact on distal fragment — relatively stable, can treat non-operatively in selected patients.
Type IIB: Fracture lateral to the conoid (so the conoid is detached or on the proximal fragment) with the trapezoid attached to the distal fragment — unstable. The medial (proximal) fragment is displaced superiorly by trapezius/sternocleidomastoid while the distal fragment stays tethered to the coracoid. Non-union rate historically about 22-33% with non-operative care (36% in the Hall/McKee RCT). Operative fixation is usually offered for displaced type II fractures.
Type III: Intra-articular AC joint fracture. Type IV: Paediatric (epiphyseal). Type V: Inferior comminution.
Hook Plate Pitfalls — Distal Clavicle
Mechanism: Hook passes under the acromion into the subacromial space to prevent superior displacement of the proximal fragment. Provides excellent initial fixation for Neer IIB.
Mandatory removal: Hook occupies subacromial space and causes erosion of the undersurface of the acromion and rotator cuff impingement if left in situ. Must be removed at 3-6 months post-fracture union. Failure to inform patient is a medicolegal risk. Subacromial bursal thickening and rotator cuff pathology develop if left beyond 6 months. Acromial stress fracture under the hook is a recognised complication.
Non-Union Risk Factors
Patient factors: Female sex (2x risk vs male), advancing age, smoking (impairs endothelial healing), osteoporosis, metabolic disease, NSAID use.
Fracture factors: Displacement greater than 100% shaft width, shortening greater than 2cm, significant comminution (loss of medial cortical contact), figure-of-8 bandage applied (does not restore length). Non-union of displaced midshaft fractures is roughly 8-16% with non-operative care in the pivotal RCTs (16/200 in Robinson 2013) and falls to about 1-2% with plate fixation (1/200 in Robinson 2013; 2/67 in the 2007 COTS trial). Recognise non-union on plain film: persistent fracture line at 12+ weeks, sclerotic fragment ends, gap. Management: plate fixation plus autogenous bone graft (commonly iliac crest).
CLAVICLECLAVICLE — Operative Indications for Midshaft Fracture
NEERNEER — Distal Clavicle Classification and Operative Decision
Midshaft Clavicle Fracture (Allman Group I, Edinburgh 2B)
Classification
Allman Classification: Group I = middle third (80% of all clavicle fractures), Group II = distal third (15%), Group III = medial third (5%).
Edinburgh Classification (Robinson 1998, PMID 9619941): Derived from a consecutive series of 1000 adult clavicle fractures; gives more surgical detail than Allman and reports inter-/intra-observer reliability.
- Type 1: Medial fifth
- Type 2A: Diaphyseal (middle), undisplaced (cortical alignment maintained or greenstick)
- 2B1: Displaced diaphyseal, simple or single butterfly fragment
- 2B2: Displaced diaphyseal, comminuted / segmental, no cortical contact
- Type 3: Lateral fifth (3A undisplaced, 3B displaced)
Edinburgh type 2B (displaced diaphyseal) carries the highest risk of delayed/non-union and is the group studied in the operative-versus-non-operative RCTs.
Pivotal RCT Evidence (Midshaft)
Robinson CM et al. JBJS Am 2013;95(17):1576-84 (PMID 24005198): Multicentre, single-blinded RCT of 200 adults aged 16-60 with acute displaced midshaft fractures, randomised to primary plate ORIF vs non-operative (sling). Union confirmed on 3D CT.
Results:
- Non-union: ORIF 1/200 vs non-operative 16/200 (relative risk 0.07, p = 0.007)
- One-year DASH (3.4 vs 6.1, p = 0.04) and Constant (92.0 vs 87.8, p = 0.01) scores favoured ORIF for the whole cohort
- KEY nuance: when patients who developed non-union were excluded, there was NO significant functional difference at any time point — the benefit is essentially prevention of non-union/malunion
- Patients were less dissatisfied with shoulder droop, bump and asymmetry after ORIF
- ORIF was significantly more expensive and carried implant-related complications not seen with non-operative care
Conclusion (authors): ORIF reduces non-union and improves outcomes mainly by preventing non-union; the trial does NOT support routine primary plate fixation for every displaced midshaft fracture, supporting an individualised, shared decision.
Earlier confirmatory RCT — Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS) JBJS Am 2007;89(1):1-10 (PMID 17200303): 132 patients randomised to plate vs sling. Non-union 2/67 (ORIF) vs 7/65 (non-op, p = 0.042); symptomatic malunion 0 vs 9; better Constant/DASH and faster union with ORIF; hardware removal the commonest reason for re-intervention.
Absolute Indications
| Indication | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Open fracture | Contamination, bone exposure — proceed to debridement and fixation |
| Neurovascular compromise | Subclavian vessel injury or brachial plexus compromise — emergent exploration |
| Impending skin perforation (tent sign) | Bone spike tenting skin, imminent open fracture |
| Floating shoulder | Ipsilateral clavicle + scapular neck fracture — upper limb mechanically detached from thorax |
| Bilateral clavicle fractures | Polytrauma, inability to weight-bear through either arm |
Relative Indications (Shared Decision-Making)
| Indication | Evidence Basis |
|---|---|
| Shortening greater than 2cm | Strongest single predictor of non-union; functional shoulder girdle asymmetry |
| Displacement greater than 100% shaft width | Associated with worse functional outcomes if non-union |
| Comminuted fracture (2B2) in dominant arm | Higher non-union risk, active patient unable to accept prolonged recovery |
| Polytrauma / multiply injured | Early fixation facilitates nursing care, mobilisation, reduces fat embolism risk |
| High-demand overhead athlete | Earlier return to sport, specific occupational demands |
Non-Operative Management — When to Choose
For undisplaced or minimally displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (Edinburgh 2A), non-operative management remains the standard of care. Broad arm sling for comfort is preferred over figure-of-8 bandage — multiple trials demonstrate equivalent outcomes with the sling and significantly better patient comfort (less axillary skin excoriation, nerve compression).
Expected timeline non-operative: Radiographic union by 12-16 weeks in most adults. Return to light activities 6-8 weeks, sport 12-16 weeks. Counsel patients that a visible bump (exuberant callus) may develop at the fracture site and is a normal healing response — it typically remodels over 12-24 months but may never completely resolve.
Absolute contraindications to non-operative management are the absolute indications listed above. For the remaining displaced fractures (Edinburgh 2B), the RCT data (Robinson 2013, 2007 COTS) supports discussing operative fixation to reduce non-union/malunion, particularly when shortening exceeds 2cm — while acknowledging the Cochrane finding of no clinically important functional gain.
Guidelines, Registries & Global Practice
Clavicle fracture epidemiology: Clavicle fractures account for 2.6-4% of all fractures (Lenza Cochrane 2019; Robinson Edinburgh series). Bimodal age distribution — young males (sport and road trauma) and elderly females (osteoporotic falls). Midshaft (Allman Group I / Edinburgh type 2) approximately 80%, lateral (Group II / type 3) approximately 15%, medial (Group III / type 1) approximately 5%.
International practice variation (side by side): Operative thresholds genuinely differ by region. North American practice (influenced by the 2007 Canadian COTS and 2013 Edinburgh RCTs) has a comparatively higher rate of fixation for displaced fractures. UK BOA/BOAST and much of European practice remains more selective, reserving fixation for absolute indications or markedly displaced/shortened fractures in higher-demand patients, partly reflecting the Cochrane finding (PMID 30666620) that surgery confers no clinically important functional benefit beyond reducing non-union/malunion. No major arthroplasty registry (NJR, AJRR, AOANJRR, SHAR) captures clavicle ORIF volumes, so registry-level implant-survival data are not applicable here; the evidence base is RCT/meta-analysis. For the exam, demonstrate awareness that practice varies across societies and anchor the decision in the RCT and Cochrane evidence rather than any single national guideline.
Surgical Imaging



Clinical Decision Scenarios
Use these scenarios to practise clinical reasoning and management decisions
"A 22-year-old right-hand dominant competitive road cyclist sustains a displaced midshaft right clavicle fracture after a fall. Plain radiographs show 2.2cm of shortening and greater than 100% displacement. The skin is intact, neurological examination is normal, and he has no other injuries. He competes at national level and is concerned about his upcoming racing season. Should you offer surgery, and what is the evidence?"
"A 45-year-old right-hand dominant accountant sustains a Neer type IIB distal right clavicle fracture when she falls from a horse. Plain radiographs show the proximal clavicle fragment displaced superiorly by 1.5cm. She is otherwise well. What is the significance of the Neer IIB designation, and how would you manage this fracture?"
"Six weeks following right clavicle ORIF with a superior plate for a midshaft fracture, your patient complains of numbness and tingling over the anterior chest wall below the incision, extending to the medial aspect of the upper arm. He is otherwise well, has good wound healing, and shoulder strength is normal. What is your diagnosis and management?"
Clavicle ORIF — Exam Day Summary
Clinical summary
Key Evidence
Open reduction and plate fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures
Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures (COTS multicentre RCT)
Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating fractures of the middle third of the clavicle (Cochrane review)
Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute displaced distal clavicle fractures: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
Fractures of the clavicle in the adult: epidemiology and classification (Edinburgh classification)
References
-
Robinson CM, Goudie EB, Murray IR, et al. Open reduction and plate fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(17):1576-1584. PMID: 24005198. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00307
-
Robinson CM. Fractures of the clavicle in the adult: epidemiology and classification. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(3):476-484. PMID: 9619941. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b3.8079 (Edinburgh classification)
-
Neer CS 2nd. Fractures of the distal third of the clavicle. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1968;58:43-50. (Neer classification — original description)
-
Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(1):1-10. PMID: 17200303. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00020
-
Lenza M, Buchbinder R, Johnston RV, Ferrari BAS, Faloppa F. Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating fractures of the middle third of the clavicle. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD009363. PMID: 30666620. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009363.pub3
-
Hall JA, Schemitsch CE, Vicente MR, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute displaced distal clavicle fractures: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Trauma. 2021;35(12):660-666. PMID: 34128498. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002211