Plate versus intramedullary fixation of two-part and multifragmentary displaced midshaft clavicle fractures - a long-term analysis

Functional outcomes and complications of plate fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures by type and location: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Various plate types are used in the surgical treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. These plates can be positioned in different locations on the clavicle, although no studies to date have elucidated optimal plate type and location of fixation. This systematic review compares the functional outcomes and complications in the management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures using plate fixation by stratifying by both plate type and location.

Methods

A systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted to identify all papers reporting functional outcomes, union rates, and/or complications using plates for the management of midshaft clavicle fractures. Multiple databases and trial registries were searched from inception until March 2022. A meta-analysis was conducted for functional outcomes and type of complication, stratified by plate type (locking, compression, or reconstruction) and location (superior or anteroinferior). Pooled estimates of functional outcome scores and incidence of complications were calculated using a random effects model. Risk of bias and quality were assessed using the risk of bias version 2 and ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tools. The confidence in estimates were rated and described according to the recommendations of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) working group.

Results

Forty-five studies were included in the systematic review and 43 were included in the meta-analysis. Depending on plate type and location, pooled Constant-Murley Scores ranged from 89.23 to 93.48 at 12 months. Nonunion rates were 3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1-6) for superior locking plates (GRADE Low). Rates of any complication (nonunion, hardware failure, hardware irritation, wound dehiscence, keloid, superficial infection, deep infection, delayed union, malunion, and/or persistent pain) by plate type and location ranged from 3% to 17% (GRADE Very Low to Moderate). Superior compression plates had the highest incidence of any complications (17% [95% CI 5-44], GRADE Very Low), while anterior inferior compression plates had the lowest incidence of any complication (3% [95% CI 0-15], GRADE Very Low). Hardware irritation was the most reported individual complication for superior locking plates and superior compression plates, 11% (95% CI 7-17, GRADE Low) and 11% (95% CI 3-33, GRADE Very Low), respectively.

Conclusion

Although most studies were of low quality, studies reporting functional outcomes generally showed good functional results and similar incidence of any complication regardless of plate type and location. There is no evidence of a plate and location combination to optimize patient functional outcomes or complications. We were unable to reliably evaluate union rates or individual complications for most plate types stratified by location.

Clinical effect of nice knot-assisted minimally invasive titanium elastic nail fixation to treat Robinson 2B midshaft clavicular fracture

BACKGROUND

The treatment of completely displaced midshaft clavicle fractures is still controversial, especially Robinson 2B fractures. Titanium elastic nail (TEN) fixation is a good option for simple fractures, but no reports exist on its use in complex fractures. This study aimed to present a surgical method using the Nice knot-assisted TEN fixation to treat Robinson 2B midshaft clavicular fractures.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 29 patients who underwent fixation with TEN and had a 1-year postoperative follow-up between 2016 and 2020 was performed. The fractures were classified as Robinson type 2B1 in 17 cases and type 2B2 in 12 cases. Length of the incision, postoperative shoulder function Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and Constant score, complications rate, and second surgical incision length were recorded.

RESULTS

The length of the incision was 2-6 cm (average 3.7 cm). All incisions healed by first intention, and no infection or nerve injury occurred. The Constant score was 92-100 (average 96) and the DASH score was 0-6.2 (mean, 2.64). TEN bending and hypertrophic nonunion occurred in one case (3.4%) and implant irritation occurred in four cases (13.8%) Fixation implants were removed at 12-26 months (mean, 14.6 months) after surgery, and the length of the second incision was 1-2.5 cm (average 1.3 cm).

CONCLUSIONS

Intramedullary fixation by TEN is approved as a suitable surgical technique in clavicular fracture treatment. Nice knot-assisted fixation provides multifragmentary fracture stabilization, contributing to good fracture healing. Surgeons should consider this technique in treating Robinson 2B midshaft clavicular fractures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Wuxi Ninth People's Hospital (LW20220021).

Bilateral clavicle fracture: A case report

Clavicle fractures are among the most common fractures in adults. Nevertheless, bilateral fractures are rarely reported in the literature. We present the case of a 35-year-old male patient who was admitted with a bilateral clavicle fracture following a motorcycle accident. The patient underwent open reduction and bilateral intramedullary fixation with Kirschner wires. After six months of follow-up, the functional result was satisfactory; the patient achieved full range of motion in both shoulders and was free from pain. X-rays showed a complete fusion of the fracture on both sides.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Simple Plate Fixation and Plate Combined with Local Fixation of Broken Ends in the Treatment of Oblique Fracture of Midshaft Clavicle

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of performing simple plate fixation with that using a plate combined with fracture end fixation to investigate the necessity of fracture end fixation outside the plate in cases of oblique fracture of the middle clavicle.

Methods

This was a retrospective follow‐up study of patients with middle clavicle oblique fractures (Robinson types 2A1 and 2A2) between 2015 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups according to their treatment options: the simple plate fixation (SPF) group (n = 79; 43 men and 36 women; average age, 46.37 ± 14.54 years) and the plate combined with fracture local fixation (PLFP) group (n = 81; 36 men and 45 women; average age, 48.42 ± 12.55 years). Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative fracture healing time, postoperative shoulder function score (Constant–Murley and disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand [DASH] scores), clinical complications, and postoperative subjective satisfaction were compared between the two groups.

Results

One hundred sixty patients with a sufficient follow‐up period were included in the final analysis: 79 in the SPF group (follow‐up time: 16.24 ± 3.94 months) and 81 in the PLFP group (follow‐up time: 16.15 ± 3.43 months). Age, sex, body mass index, follow‐up duration, fracture classification, and cause of injury were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in blood loss, Constant–Murley and DASH scores, follow‐up period, and postoperative subjective satisfaction between the two groups (P > 0.05). The fracture healing time was shorter in the PLFP group than in the SPF group (4.41 ± 0.99 vs. 4.87 ± 1.60 months, P < 0.05), but the operation duration was longer in the PLFP group than in the SPF group (65.48 ± 16.48 min, P < 0.05). There were seven (complication rate, 8.86%) and five (complication rate, 6.17%) cases that had complications in the SPF and PLFP groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the complication rates between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Although the healing time was shorter in the PLFP group than in the SPF group, the clinical efficiency of the two methods in the treatment of oblique fracture of the middle clavicle was similar.

The emergency medicine management of clavicle fractures

BACKGROUND

Clavicle fractures are common. An emergency physician needs to understand the diagnostic classifications of clavicle fractures, have a plan for immobilization, identify associated injuries, understand the difference between treating pediatric and adult patients, and have an approach to multimodal pain control. It is also important to understand when expert orthopedic consultation or referral is indicated.

OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW

To provide an evidence-based review of clavicle fracture management in the emergency department.

DISCUSSION

Clavicle fractures account for up to 4% of all fractures evaluated in the emergency department. They can be separated into midshaft, distal, and proximal fractures. They are also classified in terms of their degree of displacement, comminution and shortening. Emergent referral is indicated for open fractures, posteriorly displaced proximal fractures, and those with emergent associated injuries. Urgent referral is warranted for fractures with greater than 100% displacement, fractures with >2 cm of shortening, comminuted fractures, unstable distal fractures, and floating shoulder. Nondisplaced or minimally displaced fractures with no instability or associated neurovascular injury are managed non-operatively with a sling. Pediatric fractures are generally managed conservatively, with adolescents older than 9 years-old for girls and 12 years-old for boys being treated using algorithms that are similar to adults.

CONCLUSIONS

When encountering a patient with a clavicle fracture in the emergency department the fracture pattern will help determine whether emergent consultation or urgent referral is indicated. Most patients can be discharged safely with sling immobilization and appropriate outpatient follow-up.

Plate fixation versus intramedullary nail or Knowles pin fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Plate fixation and intramedullary nail/Knowles pin fixation methods are commonly used to treat displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. However, the differences between these 2 methods are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare plate fixation and intramedullary nail/Knowles pin fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EBM reviews, and Ovid Medline online for studies related to comparison of plate fixation versus intramedullary nail/Knowles pin fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fracture from inception to June 30, 2019. Relevant literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment will be performed by 2 researchers independently. The methodological quality of all included studies was appraised using the Cochrane system for randomized trials. The RevMan 5.2 software was used for heterogeneity assessment, generating funnel-plots, data synthesis, sensitivity analysis, and determining publication bias. The fixed-effects or random-effects model was used to calculate mean difference (MD)/relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 839 patients from 12 randomized controlled trials. We found that compared to plate fixation, intramedullary nail/Knowles pin fixation yielded a higher shoulder constant score [MD = -2.43, 95% CI (-3.46 to -1.41), P < .00001] and lower disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score [MD = 2.98, 95% CI (0.16-5.81), P = .04], and lower infection rates [RR = 2.05, 95% CI (1.36-3.09), P = .003], operation time [MD = 20.20, 95% CI (10.80-29.60), P < .0001], incision size [MD = 6.09, 95% CI (4.54-7.65), P < .00001], and hospital stay [MD = 1.10, 95% CI (0.56-1.64), P < .00001] but with a higher removal rate [RR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.41-0.65), P < .00001] compared to plate fixation. There were no significant differences in nonunion, reintervention, or revision and refracture between these two methods. The limitation is that many studies did not demonstrate the random generated details, and only English articles were enrolled in this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Intramedullary nail/Knowles pin fixation might be an optimum choice for treating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures, with similar performance in terms of the nonunion, reintervention, or revision and refracture, and better shoulder constant and DASH scores, infection rates, and operative parameters.

Dual Mini-Fragment Plating Is Comparable With Precontoured Small Fragment Plating for Operative Diaphyseal Clavicle Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To compare precontoured (Pc) small fragment plating to dual mini-fragment plating (DmF) for open reduction and internal fixation of diaphyseal clavicle fractures.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

A total of 133 patients with displaced fractures of the diaphyseal clavicle (OTA/AO 15-B1, -2, and -3) treated with open reduction and internal fixation with a minimum of 1 year follow-up or until radiographic and clinical union.

INTERVENTION

Two patient cohorts were identified: (1) patients treated with orthogonal DmF plate constructs and (2) patients treated with Pc clavicle-specific plates.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Union rate and implant removal were assessed using standard descriptive statistics. Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P values (P) were calculated.

RESULTS

There were 60 DmF and 74 Pc patients. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, sex, surgeon, body mass index, or mode of fixation. There was no significant difference in union (98.3% DmF; 100% Pc, P = 0.45) or maintenance of reduction (98.3% DmF; 100% Pc, P = 0.45). A total of 8% of DmF patients had symptomatic implant removal compared with 20% of Pc patients (odds ratio 0.36, confidence interval 0.12-1.05, P = 0.061).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective comparative study found no difference in union or maintenance of reduction for diaphyseal clavicle fractures fixed with DmF compared with Pc plating. Patients treated with DmF plates may have lower rates of symptomatic implant removal.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparison of the effectiveness of oblique and transverse incisions in the treatment of fractures of the middle and outer third of the clavicle

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic supraclavicular nerve injury is frequent during surgical repair of clavicle fractures through a transverse incision. The use of an oblique incision may be a potential approach to avoiding this complication. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of oblique and transverse incisions in the treatment of fractures in the middle and outer thirds of the clavicle.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included patients with fracture of the mid-to-outer third of the clavicle between August 2011 and August 2016. We allocated the patients into 2 groups based on their choice of treatment: oblique incision (n = 62) and transverse incision (n = 64). We compared the following parameters between the 2 groups: operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative fracture healing time, incision size, clinical complications, postoperative subjective satisfaction, and shoulder function.

RESULTS

Operative time, postoperative fracture healing time, postoperative shoulder function (Constant-Murley and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand [DASH] scores), and clinical complications did not differ significantly between groups (all P > .05). The oblique incision group had less intraoperative blood loss (41.4 ± 16.4 vs. 65.3 ± 10.4 mL, P < .001) and smaller surgical incisions (3.6 ± 1.6 vs. 10.3 ± 2.6 cm, P < .001). The oblique incision group showed better outcomes for postoperative satisfaction (85.5% vs. 64.1%, P = .015), absence of shoulder numbness at the last follow-up (89.3% vs. 70.3%, P = .010), and satisfaction with the scar (90.3% vs. 3.1%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Oblique incisions have several advantages over transverse incisions: less bleeding, smaller incisions, less iatrogenic injury to supraclavicular nerves, and higher patient satisfaction. These 2 approaches have equivalent effects on recovery of shoulder joint function.