Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study of Nonoperative Versus Operative Treatment for High-Energy Midshaft Clavicle Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate if nonoperative or operative treatment of displaced clavicle fractures delivers reduced rates of nonunion and improved Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, observational. SETTING: Seven Level 1 Trauma Centers in the United States. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adults with closed, displaced (100% displacement/shortened >1.5 cm) midshaft clavicle fractures (Orthopaedic Trauma Association 15.2) were treated nonoperatively, with plates and screw fixation, or with intramedullary fixation from 2003 to 2018. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: DASH scores (2, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months), reoperation, and nonunion were compared between the nonoperative, plate fixation, and intramedullary fixation groups. RESULTS: Four hundred twelve patients were enrolled, with 203 undergoing plate fixation, 26 receiving intramedullary fixation, and 183 treated nonoperatively. The average age of the nonoperative group was 40.1 (range 18-79) years versus 35.8 (range 18-74) in the plate group and 39.3 (range 19-56) in the intramedullary fixation group (P = 0.06). One hundred forty (76.5%) patients in the nonoperative group were male compared with 154 (75.9%) in the plate group and 18 (69.2%) in the intramedullary fixation group (P = 0.69). All groups showed similar DASH scores at 2 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months (P > 0.05). Plate fixation demonstrated better DASH scores (median = 20.8) than nonoperative (median = 28.3) at 6 weeks (P = 0.04). Intramedullary fixation had poorer DASH scores at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months than plate fixation and worse DASH scores than nonoperative at 6 months (P < 0.05). The nonunion rate for nonoperative treatment (14.6%) was significantly higher than the plate group (0%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Operative treatment of displaced clavicle fractures provided lower rates of nonunion than nonoperative treatment. Except at 6 weeks, no difference was observed in DASH scores between plate fixation and nonoperative treatment. Intramedullary fixation resulted in worse DASH scores than plate fixation at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months and worse DASH scores than nonoperative at 6 months. Implant removal was the leading reason for reoperation in the plate and intramedullary fixation groups, whereas surgery for nonunion was the primary reason for surgery in the nonoperative group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Midshaft clavicle fractures: is anterior plating an acceptable alternative to superior plating?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether anterior plating is better tolerated than superior plating for midshaft clavicle fractures. METHODS: This was a prospective non-randomized observational cohort study following operative vs. non-operative management of clavicle fractures from 2003 to 2018 at 7 level 1 academic trauma centers in the USA. The subset of patients treated with plate and screws is the basis for this comparative study. Adults aged 18-85 with closed clavicle fractures displaced over 100% or shortened by more than 1.5 cm were eligible for enrollment. Patients were followed for 2 years following enrollment. Allowable fixation methods at the discretion of the surgeon consisted of anterior-inferior or superior plating. A total of 412 patients were enrolled. Of these, 192 patients received either superior or anterior plating for a displaced clavicle fracture with complete documented prospective research forms capturing type of plating technique. The primary outcome measure was hardware removal (HWR). Secondary outcomes were Disability of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and Visual Analog Pain (VAP) score, and satisfaction score (1 = high satisfaction; 5 = low satisfaction). RESULTS: There was no difference in HWR rates (7.1% superior 9/127; 6.2% anterior 4/65, p = 0.81), VAP score (mean 1.5 SD 1.0 superior; mean 1.7 SD 0.6 anterior, p = 0.21), DASH score (mean 7.5 SD 12.4 superior; mean 5.2 SD 15.2 anterior; p = 0.18) or satisfaction score (mean 1.6 SD 1.0 superior; mean 1.7 SD 0.60 anterior, p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in HWR rates or functional outcomes when using a superior vs. anterior plating technique.