Open reduction and plate fixation compared with non-surgical treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fracture: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Miao Qin, Shishun Zhao, Wenlai Guo, Li Tang, Hangyu Li, Xuejie Wang, Zhe Zhu, Tianwen Sun, Miao Qin, Shishun Zhao, Wenlai Guo, Li Tang, Hangyu Li, Xuejie Wang, Zhe Zhu, Tianwen Sun

Abstract

Backgrounds: There is no consensus concerning whether surgery or non-surgical treatment is preferred for displaced midshaft clavicle fracture. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare healing effects and cosmetic results between surgery and non-surgery.

Methods: We retrieved RCTs regarding open reduction and plate fixation (ORPF) and non-surgical method for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fracture published before June 2018 from PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The difference between the two treatments was comparatively discussed in aspects of nonunion, malunion, functional outcome, cosmetic results, and complications.

Results: Nine RCTs were included. The results showed that ORPF is advantageous over the non-surgical treatment in terms of nonunion rate (RR, 0.11[95%CI, 0.06-0.23]), malunion rate (RR, 0.16[95%CI, 0.08-0.35]), appearance dissatisfaction rate (RR, 0.35[95%CI 0.23-0.55]), and shoulder appearance defect rate (RR, 0.06[95%CI, 0.02-0.17]). The non-surgical treatment showed lower rate of complication (RR, 1.60[95%CI, 1.02-2.53]) and no significant differences were found between the 2 treatment groups with respect to functional outcome (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire score) (MD, -4.17[95%CI, -9.35 to 1.01]).

Conclusions: This meta-analysis updated previous results. The current findings suggested that ORPF yielded better efficacy than conservation treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fracture from perspectives of fracture healing and appearance.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias graph: a review of the authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias summary: a review of the authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. “+”: risk of bias not present; “−”: risk of bias present; “?”: insufficient information to judge risk of bias.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot showing comparison of nonunion rate between ORPF (experimental) and non-surgical treatment (control) groups. ORPF = open reduction and plate fixation.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot showing comparison of malunion rate between ORPF (experimental) and non-surgical treatment (control) groups. ORPF = open reduction and plate fixation.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot showing comparison of DASH scores between ORPF (experimental) and non-surgical treatment (control) groups. DASH = disabilities of the arm, ORPF = open reduction and plate fixation.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot showing comparison of appearance dissatisfaction rate between ORPF (experimental) and non-surgical treatment (control) groups. ORPF = open reduction and plate fixation.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot showing comparison of shoulder appearance defect rate between ORPF (experimental) and non-surgical treatment (control) groups. ORPF = open reduction and plate fixation.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Forest plot showing comparison of complication rate between ORPF (experimental) and non-surgical treatment (control) groups. ORPF = open reduction and plate fixation.

References

    1. Preston CF, Egol KA. Midshaft clavicle fractures in adults. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009;67:52–7.
    1. Neer CS., 2nd Fractures of the distal third of the clavicle. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1968;58:43–50.
    1. Rowe CR. An atlas of anatomy and treatment of midclavicular fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1968;58:29–42.
    1. Hill JM, McGuire MH, Crosby LA. Closed treatment of displaced middle-third fractures of the clavicle gives poor results. J Bone Joint Surg (Br Vol) 1997;79:537–9.
    1. Murray IR, Foster CJ, Eros A, et al. Risk factors for nonunion after nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:1153–8.
    1. van der Meijden OA, Gaskill TR, Millett PJ. Treatment of clavicle fractures: current concepts review. J Should Elbow Surg 2012;21:423–9.
    1. McKee RC, Whelan DB, Schemitsch EH, et al. Operative versus nonoperative care of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am- Series A 2012;94:675–84.
    1. Devji T, Kleinlugtenbelt Y, Evaniew N, et al. Operative versus nonoperative interventions for common fractures of the clavicle: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ open 2015;3:E396–405.
    1. Wang XH, Guo WJ, Li AB, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a meta-analysis based on current evidence. Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2015;70:584–92.
    1. Kong L, Zhang Y, Shen Y. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014;134:1493–500.
    1. Xu J, Xu L, Xu W, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment in the management of midshaft clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Should Elbow Surg 2014;23:173–81.
    1. Woltz S, Krijnen P, Schipper IB. Plate fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017;99:1051–7.
    1. Xu CP, Li X, Cui Z, et al. Should displaced midshaft clavicular fractures be treated surgically? A meta-analysis based on current evidence. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2013;23:621–9.
    1. Ahrens P, Garlick N, Barber J, et al. The clavicle trial: a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing operative with nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017;99:1345–54.
    1. Shetty SK, Chandran R, Ballal A, et al. To operate or not to operate the mid-shaft fractures of the clavicle: a comparative study of functional outcomes of the two methods of management. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:RC01–3.
    1. Tamaoki M, Matsunaga F, Costa A, et al. Treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: figure-of-eight harness versus anterior plate osteosynthesis: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017;99:1159–65.
    1. Higgins JPT. Green Se. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0. (updated March 2011).
    1. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006–12.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2009;339:b2700.
    1. Marsh JL, F Slongo T, Agel J, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium – 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;2110 Suppl:S1–133.
    1. Robinson CM. Fractures of the clavicle in the adult. Epidemiology and classification. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:476–84.
    1. 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;89:1–0.
    1. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clin Trials 1996;17:1–2.
    1. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 1999;319:670–4.
    1. Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Intention-to-treat versus per-protocol analysis. Perspect Clin Res 2016;7:144–6.
    1. Dugar N, Hossain E, Bandyopadhyay U, et al. A comparative study of non-operative and operative management in fracture clavicle. J Indian Med Assoc 2013;111:808–9. 806.
    1. Naveen BM, Joshi GR, Harikrishnan B. Management of mid-shaft clavicular fractures: comparison between non-operative treatment and plate fixation in 60 patients. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2017;12:11–8.
    1. Dhakad RKS, Panwar M, Gupta S. Plating versus conservative treatment in mid shaft fractures of clavicle: A comparative study. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2016;7:166–70.
    1. Chutkan NB. Sling compared with plate osteosynthesis for treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a randomized clinical trial. Orthopedics 2012;35:961–2.
    1. Melean PA, Zuniga A, Marsalli M, et al. Surgical treatment of displaced middle-third clavicular fractures: a prospective, randomized trial in a working compensation population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015;24:587–92.
    1. Mirzatolooei F. Comparison between operative and nonoperative treatment methods in the management of comminuted fractures of the clavicle. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2011;45:34–40.
    1. Robinson CM, Goudie EB, Murray IR, et al. Open reduction and plate fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am - Series A 2013;95:1576–84.
    1. Virtanen KJ, Remes V, Pajarinen J, et al. Sling compared with plate osteosynthesis for treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: A randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am - Series A 2012;94:1546–53.
    1. Woltz S, Stegeman S, Krijnen P, et al. Plate fixation compared with nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017;99:106–12.
    1. McKee MD, Wild LM, Schemitsch EH. Midshaft malunions of the clavicle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-a(5):790–7.
    1. Chan KY, Jupiter JB, Leffert RD, et al. Clavicle malunion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1999;8:287–90.
    1. Eskola A, Vainionpaa S, Myllynen P, et al. Outcome of clavicular fracture in 89 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1986;105:337–8.
    1. Hillen R, Eygendaal D. Corrective osteotomy after malunion of mid shaft fractures of the clavicle. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2007;2:59–61.
    1. Ledger M, Leeks N, Ackland T, et al. Short malunions of the clavicle: an anatomic and functional study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:349–54.
    1. Beliaev AM, Fougere C. Thoracic outlet syndrome secondary to a mid-clavicle malunion. BMJ Case Rep 2015;2015: bcr2015209583.
    1. Fujita K, Matsuda K, Sakai Y, et al. Late thoracic outlet syndrome secondary to malunion of the fractured clavicle: case report and review of the literature. J Trauma 2001;50:332–5.
    1. Yoo MJ, Seo JB, Kim JP, et al. Surgical treatment of thoracic outlet syndrome secondary to clavicular malunion. Clin Orthop Surg 2009;1:54–7.
    1. Van Kampen D, Willems WJ, Van Beers L, et al. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS). Vol. 82013.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다