Preferences of orthopedic surgeons for treating midshaft clavicle fracture in adults

Comparative Study of Postoperative Outcomes of Clavicle Midshaft Fracture Treated by Nailing vs. Plating

Background

A midshaft clavicle fracture is a prevalent form of injury of the upper extremity that affects one's quality of life. Several treatment modalities facilitate fixation of the displaced midshaft clavicle to decrease nonunion and malunion of the clavicle fracture. Still, numerous factors influence choosing an optimal surgical intervention. Thus, this study investigates the functional outcome of two standard fixation techniques, titanium elastic nails (TENs) and locking plates, as a prospective comparative study for surgical management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

Methods

We performed closed/open reduction and internal fixation in 62 patients (40 male and 22 female) with TENs and locking plates, respectively, which were followed up at regular intervals following the surgery (at two, six, 12, 24, and 48 weeks). The surgical outcome was assessed both from functional and radiological standpoints. The influence of surgical fixation on functional outcome was evaluated based on the Constant-Murley score and the fracture recuperation based on union times.

Results

When compared to plate fixation, TENs had lesser union times. Still, there was no statistical difference in union time between the two groups. The functional assessment graded by Constant-Murley score had a similar distribution of scores between the two groups.With a follow-up of twelve months, the Constant-Murley scores between the groups were not statistically different. While the average score for plate fixation was slightly higher than that of TENs, the nonunion rate was found to be similar in both groups.

Conclusion

Surgical interventions using both TENs and plate fixation are suitable for managing clavicle midshaft fractures as they have a similar functional outcome. However, considering early recovery with minimal surgical complications, TENs can be a preferred treatment choice for managing displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

Can Upstream Patient Education Improve Fracture Care in a Digital World? Use of a Decision Aid for the Treatment of Displaced Diaphyseal Clavicle Fractures

BACKGROUND

The increasing proportion of telemedicine and virtual care in orthopaedic surgery presents an opportunity for upstream delivery of patient facing tools, such as decision aids. Displaced diaphyseal clavicle fractures (DDCFs) are ideal for a targeted intervention because there is no superior treatment, and decisions are often dependent on patient's preference. A decision aid provided before consultation may educate a patient and minimize decisional conflict similarly to inperson consultation with an orthopaedic traumatologist.

METHODS

Patients with DDCF were enrolled into 2 groups. The usual care group participated in a discussion with a trauma fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon. Patients in the intervention group were administered a DDCF decision aid designed with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Primary comparisons were made based on a decisional conflict score. Secondary outcomes included treatment choice, pain score, QuickDASH, and opinion toward cosmetic appearance.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients were enrolled. Decisional conflict scores were similar and low between the 2 groups: 11.8 (usual care) and 11.4 (decision aid). There were no differences in secondary outcomes between usual care and the decision aid.

DISCUSSION

Our decision aid for the management of DDCF produces a similarly low decisional conflict score to consultation with an orthopaedic trauma surgeon. This decision aid could be a useful resource for surgeons who infrequently treat this injury or whose practices are shifting toward telemedicine visits. Providing a decision aid before consultation may help incorporate patient's values and preferences into the decision-making process between surgery and nonoperative management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.