ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of thoracoscopic assisted reduction and traditional manual reduction with percutaneous intramedullary nail internal fixation in the treatment of mid-clavicular fractures.MethodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. Twenty-two patients with mid-clavicular fractures who met the selection criteria between March 2012 and March 2017 were recruited and randomly divided into trial group (7 cases, thoracoscopic assisted reduction and percutaneous intramedullary nail fixation) and control group (15 cases, traditional manual reduction and percutaneous intramedullary nail fixation). There was no significant difference in gender, age, side, cause of injury, fracture classification, interval between injury and operation between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time and fracture healing time were recorded and compared between the two groups. The effectiveness was evaluated by Constant-Murley scale at 6 months after operation, which included subjective evaluation indexes (functional activity and pain) and objective evaluation indexes (range of motion of shoulder joint and muscle strength).ResultsThe operation time of the trial group was significantly longer than that of the control group (t=5.881, P=0.000). Patients in both groups were followed up 7-20 months, with an average of 11 months. Satisfactory anatomical reduction achieved in all patients, and all incisions healed by first intension. In the control group, 1 patient had difficulty in removing the intramedullary nail, and 1 patient had fracture nonunion. No fracture nonunion or intramedullary nail rupture in the other patients of two groups. There was no significant difference in fracture healing time between the two groups (t=0.764, P=0.453). At 6 months after operation, there was no significant difference in Constant-Murley scale between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionThe treatment of the mid-clavicular fracture by using thoracoscopic assisted reduction with intramedullary nail internal fixation requires longer operation time, but does not require fluoroscopy. The effectiveness is comparable to that of traditional surgery.