Comparison of treatment of fracture midshaft clavicle in adults by external fixator with conservative treatment

Off-label use of orthopedical trauma implants in a low-income country

PURPOSE

Lack of resources, severe injuries, and logistical flaws force surgeons in low-income countries (LIC) to improvise during surgery and use implants "off-label." These off-label treatments are specific for the work of trauma surgeons in non-governmental (NGO) hospitals in LIC. The aim of this study is to show the need of off-label surgery in an environment of low resources by means of typical examples.

METHODS

Off-label treated fractures, the implant used instead, and the reason for off-label treatment were investigated in 367 injuries over a three month period in an NGO hospital in Sierra Leone.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven fractures were treated off-label with mostly K-wires (88.89%) and external fixators (51.85%). Three reasons for off-label use could be defined: no suitable implants (N = 14), the condition of soft tissues that did not allow internal osteosyntheses (N = 10), and implants not ready for surgery due to logistic flaws (N = 3). The implants needed were mostly locking plates.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons in similar settings must use K-wires and external fixators to treat complex fractures. Using implants off-label can help surgeons to treat fractures otherwise left untreated.

Displaced mid-shaft clavicular fractures: state of the art for athletes and young active people

INTRODUCTION

Fractures ofthe clavicle are frequent injuries (between 4 and 10% of adult fractures) and mid-shaft diaphyseal fractures represent more than 80% of clavicle fractures. In a recent study from the USA in 2019, an incidence of 22.4 fractures per year per 100,000 people was reported. Multiple injury mechanisms are recognised, with sport accounting for 50 to 85% of these injuries. There is little or no consensus as to the optimal treatment but in recent years multiple studies have suggested operative management should be favoured in athletes and young active patients.

OBJECTIVES

These are (1) to present the anatomy and the anatomical-pathology of the fractures of the clavicle as well as the mechanisms of injury, (2), (3) to describe non-operative and operative treatment methods, (4) to review the literature around different treatment modalities and (5) to attempt to describe the best treatment for athletes.

METHODS

To collect and analyse the most recent articles of the literature regarding the management of displaced mid-shaft fractures of the clavicle for athletes and young active people.

RESULTS

Looking at studies of the general population, the results tend to favour surgical treatment with a smaller incidence of non-union and faster return to function. These results are mirrored in the athlete population where several studies have shown excellent anatomic restoration and functional recovery after plate fixation.

CONCLUSION

Based on this analysis, with the exception of patients who refuse operative management after an informed discussion, the treatment of choice in displaced clavicle fractures in athletes seems to be operative treatment with a plate and screws. However, prospective randomised studies comparing non-surgical treatment and plate osteosynthesis are missing and it is not possible to state that the latter is the best treatment.

Operative treatments compared with nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures

BACKGROUND

Few reports on external fixation to treat displaced midshaft clavicular fractures exist. We sought to compare the clinical effects of external fixation, plate fixation, and nonoperative treatment for treating displaced midshaft clavicular fractures in adults.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty-nine patients with a displaced midshaft fracture of the clavicle were selected (according to inclusion criteria) for a retrospective analysis and assigned to either operative treatment with external fixation (29 patients), plate fixation (30 patients) or nonoperative treatment with a sling (30 patients). The average follow-up period is 32 months. Outcome analysis included: Constant shoulder score (CSS); disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score (DASH); nonunion rate; satisfaction of shoulder appearance.

RESULTS

Eighty-five cases were successfully followed up. No significant difference was observed between external fixation and plate fixation (p > 0.05 and p = 0.132, respectively). The operative groups achieved better effects (p < 0.001) compared to the nonoperative treatment. The healing time of the three groups were: 10.4 ± 2.3 weeks for external fixation; 12.1 ± 2.5 weeks for plate fixation; and 15.7 ± 2.2 weeks for nonoperative treatment. In the follow-up, patients in the external fixation group (96%) and plate fixation group (93%) were more likely to be satisfied with the appearance of the shoulder than were those in the nonoperative group (77%).

CONCLUSION

The external fixation and plate fixation are overall better than the nonoperative treatment. As to choose between the two, it depends on the local soft tissue condition, surgeon's techniques, communication between doctor and patients and so on.

Is shortening of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures associated with inferior clinical outcomes following nonoperative management? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures is controversial. Nonoperative treatment can lead to shortening, a risk factor for nonunion and poor functional outcomes. These inferior results have resulted in authors recommending surgical fixation for fractures with significant shortening. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the effect of fracture shortening on shoulder function and nonunion rates in nonoperatively managed displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

METHODS

A review of the online databases MEDLINE and Embase was conducted on February 16, 2018, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered prospectively in the PROSPERO database. Clinical studies with midshaft clavicle fractures treated nonoperatively reporting an evaluation of the degree of clavicle shortening and either shoulder function or nonunion were included. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 16 studies eligible for inclusion, comprising 4 randomized controlled trials and 12 nonrandomized retrospective comparative studies. Of the 12 case series, 11 failed to demonstrate any correlation between shortening and shoulder outcome scores. Of the 4 randomized controlled trials, 3 reported no significant association between fracture shortening and shoulder outcome scores. The studies also failed to demonstrate a significant association between nonunion and the presence of clavicle shortening.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant association between fracture shortening and nonunion rates or shoulder outcome scores in displaced midshaft clavicle fractures managed nonoperatively.

Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating fractures of the middle third of the clavicle

BACKGROUND

Clavicle fractures are common, accounting for 2.6% to 4% of all fractures. Eighty per cent of clavicle fractures are located in the middle third of the clavicle. Although treatment of these fractures is usually non-surgical, displaced clavicle fractures may be considered for surgical treatment because of their greater risk of non-union. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of surgical versus conservative interventions for treating middle third clavicle fractures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, trials registries and reference lists updated to December 2017. We did not apply any language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical versus conservative interventions for treating fractures in the middle third of the clavicle. The primary outcomes were shoulder function or disability, pain and treatment failure, defined as the number of participants who had been given a non-routine secondary surgical intervention (excluding hardware removal), for symptomatic non-union, malunion or other complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors selected eligible studies, independently assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data. Where appropriate, we pooled results of comparable studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies involving 1469 participants with acute middle third clavicle fractures. All studies included adults, with the overall range from 17 to 70 years. Of the studies that reported gender, men were over-represented. Ten studies compared plate fixation with sling or figure-of-eight bandage, or both, and four studies compared intramedullary fixation with wearing either a sling or a figure-of-eight bandage. Almost all studies had design features that carry a high risk of bias, thus limiting the strength of their findings.Low-quality evidence from 10 studies (838 participants), showed that, compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment of acute middle third clavicle fractures may not improve upper arm function at follow-up of one year or longer: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.67. We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of risk of bias and high statistical heterogeneity (I² = 83%). This corresponds to a mean improvement of 2.3 points in favour of surgery (0.14 points worse to 4.69 points better), on the 100-point Constant score; this does not represent a clinically important difference. There may be no difference in pain measured using a visual analogue scale (0 to 100 mm; higher scores mean worse pain) between treatments (mean difference (MD) -0.60 mm, 95% CI -3.51 to 2.31; 277 participants, 3 studies; low-quality evidence reflecting risk of bias and imprecision). Surgery may reduce the risk of treatment failure, that is, number of participants who had non-routine secondary surgical intervention (excluding hardware removal), for symptomatic non-union, malunion or other complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.50; 1197 participants, 12 studies; low-quality evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision). The main source of treatment failure was mechanical failure (3.4%) in the surgery group and symptomatic non-union (11.6%) in the conservative-treatment group.We are uncertain whether surgery results in fewer people having one or more cosmetic problems, such as deformities, which were more common after conservative treatment, or hardware prominence or scarring, which only occurred in the surgery group (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.98; 1130 participants, 11 studies; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency). We are uncertain whether there is any difference between surgery and conservative treatment in the risk of incurring an adverse outcome that includes local infection, dehiscence, symptomatic malunion, discomfort leading to implant removal, skin and nerve problems: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.64; 1317 participants, 14 studies; I² = 72%; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency). Hardware removal for discomfort was a common adverse outcome in the surgery group (10.2%) while symptomatic malunion was more common in the conservative-treatment group (11.3% versus 1.2% in the surgery group). Infection occurred only in the surgery group (3.2%). There may be no between-group difference in quality of life at one year (SF-12 or SF-36 physical component scores: 0 to 100 scale, where 100 is the best score): MD 0.30 (95% CI -1.95 to 2.56, 321 participants, 2 studies; low-quality evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence that surgical treatment has no additional benefits in terms of function, pain and quality of life compared with conservative treatment, but may result in fewer treatment failures overall. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain of the findings of a slightly better cosmetic result after surgery and of no difference between surgical and conservative treatment in the risk of adverse events. For both composite outcomes, there is a need to consider the balance of risks between the individual outcomes; for example, surgical adverse events, including wound infection or dehiscence and hardware irritation, against risk of adverse events that may be more commonly associated with conservative treatment such as symptomatic malunion and shoulder stiffness.Treatment options must be chosen on an individual patient basis, after careful consideration of the relative benefits and harms of each intervention and of patient preferences.

Cutaneous paresthesia after internal plate fixation of clavicle fractures and underlying anatomical observations

To assess the clinical and anatomical causes of cutaneous paresthesia after internal fixation of clavicle fractures.This study included 135 patients who underwent internal fixation of clavicle fractures from May 2013 to June 2016 at the First and Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. The incidence of postoperative supraclavicular nerve injury, the duration of numbness, and improvements after plate removal were retrospectively analyzed. Seven human cadaver specimens were subsequently dissected to analyze the supraclavicular nerve and its relationship to numbness.Of the 135 patients who underwent internal fixation of clavicle fractures, 26 (19.3%) experienced postoperative cutaneous paresthesia, with 22 (16.3%) and 4 (2.8%) experiencing numbness and pain, respectively. The most intense numbness occurred during the first operative month. Of the 22 patients with numbness, 1 (4.5%), 1 (4.5%), and 20 (90.1%) patients reported mild, moderate, and severe numbness, respectively. Two patients described increased awareness of numbness when in contact with clothes, 2 were psychologically affected by numbness, and 20 (90.1%) reported reduced severity of numbness over time. At the last follow-up, numbness was found to persist in 2 (1.5%) patients. None of the patients was bothered by numbness. Cadaver dissection showed that the supraclavicular nerve emerged from the 1/2 posterior edge of the cervical sternocleidomastoid muscle and subsequently divided into 3 branches, with the lateral branch 2.26 ± 1.17 cm from the lateral margin of the acromion, the middle branch near the mid-clavicle, and the medial branch 2.03 ± 0.85 cm from the sternal lateral margin.Cutaneous paresthesia is common following internal fixation of the clavicle. Anatomic analysis showed that the nerve could be easily injured during clavicle operation. Numbness improved in most patients, but persisted for up to 2 years and was even permanent in a few. Most patients considered numbness as an insignificant factor in their daily lives.

Congenital Anatomical Variant of the Clavicle

The aim of this study is to present a rare abnormality of the clavicle (Code: SGS01) that was discovered in an ossuary in the Church of San Gaetano (Sulmona, central Italy; XVII-XIX centuries CE). In the middle third, the clavicle had three areas with losses of substance in the form of oval-shaped foramina with maximum diameters of 1-2 cm that were located in the anterior and superior surfaces of the diaphysis. The margins of these foramina were well defined and rounded, and the surfaces of the canal walls were smooth. Additionally, there were no zones of bony activity or reactive changes around the foramina. This new congenital anomaly of the clavicle and blood vessels is consistent with a variant that might have originated during fetal growth in which the subclavian vein or artery remained included during the process of ossification of the clavicle. Anat Rec, 300:1401-1408, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparative Results of External Fixation, Plating, or Nonoperative Management for Diaphyseal Clavicle Fractures

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the treatment outcomes of mid-diaphyseal clavicular fractures between an external fixator and more widely selected treatment options such as plate osteosynthesis or conservative methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of 64 patients who were treated for mid-diaphyseal clavicular fracture in our clinic from 2009 to 2013 were reviewed. The inclusion criterion was mid-diaphyseal closed clavicular fractures with shortening of more than 2 cm. The Constant and DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand) scores at the final follow-up, initial displacement, nonunion, and complication rates were compared. Statistical differences between groups were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis test, and pairwise comparison analysis was used to evaluate the differences within the groups.

RESULTS

Of the 64 patients, 24 (37.5%) were treated with plate osteosynthesis (group 1), 11 (17.2%) with an external fixator (group 2), and 29 (45.3%) conservatively with a figure-of-eight bandage (group 3). The mean follow-up periods were as follows: group 1: 37 ± 10.4 months, group 2: 33 ± 7 months, and group 3: 35 ± 9.4 months. The initial amount of displacement and DASH score were: group 1: 89.1 ± 7.8, group 2: 89.1 ± 7.8, and group 3: 6.1 ± 6.6) (p = 0.079). The Constant score of group 2 (93 ± 6.1) was significantly higher than that of group 3 (85 ± 8.4) (p = 0.013). No statistical difference was found in the distribution of nonunions (p = 0.387). However, in group 3, the number of malunions (11/29, 37.9%) was significantly higher compared to the other 2 groups (group 1: 1/24, 4.2%; group 2: 2/11, 18.2%) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that the treatment of acute clavicular fractures with an external fixator was a good alternative to plate osteosynthesis or conservative treatment.