Protocol of BRICS: Brazilian multicentric pragmatic randomised trial of surgical interventions for displaced diaphyseal clavicle fracture study: MIPO versus ORIF for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Fractures of the diaphysis of the clavicle are common; however, treatment guidelines for this condition are lacking. Surgery is associated with a lower risk of non-union and better functional outcomes but a higher risk of complications. Open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws are the most commonly performed techniques, but they are associated with paraesthesia in the areas of incisions, extensive surgical exposure and high rates of implant removal. Minimally invasive techniques for treating these fractures have a lower rate of complications. The aim of this study is to evaluate which surgical treatment option (minimally invasive osteosynthesis or open reduction and internal fixation) has better prognosis in terms of complications and reoperations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study proposed is a multicentric, pragmatic, randomised, open-label, superiority clinical trial between minimally invasive osteosynthesis and open reduction and internal fixation for surgical treatment of patients with displaced fractures of the clavicle shaft. In the proposed study, 190 individuals with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures, who require surgery as treatment, will be randomised. The assessment will occur at 2, 6, 12, 24 and 48 weeks, respectively. The primary outcome of the study will be the number of complications and reoperations. For sample size calculation, a moderate effective size between the techniques was considered in a two-tailed test, with 95% confidence and 90% power. Complications include cases of infection, hypertrophic scarring, non-union, refracture, implant failure, hypoesthesia, skin irritation and shoulder pain. Reoperations are defined as the number of surgeries for pseudoarthrosis, implant failure, infection and elective removal of the implant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study approved by the institutional ethics committee (number 34249120.9.0000.5505-V.3). The results will be disseminated by publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations in medical meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RBR-3czz68)/UTN U1111-1257-8953.

Shoulder Arthroplasty: Tenotomy of the Subscapularis Tendon versus the Lesser Tuberosity Osteotomy.

Objective To evaluate and compare subscapular muscle function among patients undergoing subscapular tenotomy (Group A) and lesser tuberosity osteotomy (Group B), in patients treated with total and partial anatomic shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis. Methods Retrospective study of patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthrosis surgically undergoing total or partial anatomic shoulder prosthesis implant, evaluated by clinical examination, imaging exams, analogue pain scale and Constant and Murley functional score. A total of 28 patients were evaluated, totalizing a sample of 32 operated shoulders. The minimum follow-up was of 12 months (mean 47.45 months). Results Among patients submitted to subscapularis tendon tenotomy, 10 had an ultrasound with total rupture of its thickness (56%). All of the patients of the group B showed lesser tuberosity healing. There was no difference between groups comparing strength evaluated by Belly press and Bear hug tests as well as clinical outcome, through the Constant and Murley score. Conclusions We did not find differences between Groups A and B evidenciated by comparing strength in the Lift-off test, in the Belly press and Bear hug tests and through he Constant and Murley score.

Shoulder Arthroplasty: Tenotomy of the Subscapularis Tendon versus the Lesser Tuberosity Osteotomy / Artroplastia de ombro: tenotomia do subescapular versus osteotomia do tubérculo menor

Abstract Objective To evaluate and compare subscapular muscle function among patients undergoing subscapular tenotomy (Group A) and lesser tuberosity osteotomy (Group B), in patients treated with total and partial anatomic shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis. Methods Retrospective study of patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthrosis surgically undergoing total or partial anatomic shoulder prosthesis implant, evaluated by clinical examination, imaging exams, analogue pain scale and Constant and Murley functional score. A total of 28 patients were evaluated, totalizing a sample of 32 operated shoulders. The minimum follow-up was of 12 months (mean 47.45 months). Results Among patients submitted to subscapularis tendon tenotomy, 10 had an ultrasound with total rupture of its thickness (56%). All of the patients of the group B showed lesser tuberosity healing. There was no difference between groups comparing strength evaluated by Belly press and Bear hug tests as well as clinical outcome, through the Constant and Murley score. Conclusions We did not find differences between Groups A and B evidenciated by comparing strength in the Lift-off test, in the Belly press and Bear hug tests and through he Constant and Murley score.

Resumo Objetivo Avaliar e comparar a função do músculo subescapular entre os grupos submetidos a tenotomia do subescapular (Grupo A) e osteotomia do tubérculo menor (Grupo B), em pacientes tratados por artroplastia anatômica total e parcial de ombros apresentando osteoartrose primária. Métodos Estudo retrospectivo de pacientes portadores de osteoartrose primária glenoumeral tratados cirurgicamente com prótese anatômica total ou parcial de ombro, avaliados por exame clínico, exames de imagens, escala visual analógica de dor e escore funcional de Constant e Murley. Foram avaliados 28 pacientes, totalizando uma amostra de 32 ombros operados. O seguimento mínimo foi de 12 meses (média 47,45 meses). Resultados Nos pacientes submetidos à tenotomia do tendão subescapular, dez obtiveram resultado ultrassonográfico com ruptura de sua espessura total (56%). A consolidação ocorreu em todos pacientes submetidos a osteotomia do tubérculo menor. Não houve diferença entre os grupos na comparação do teste Lift Off, da força nos testes Belly Press e Bear hug, e no escore de Constant e Murley. Conclusões Não encontramos diferença entre os grupos A e B na comparação do teste Lift Off, da força nos testes Belly Press e Bear hug, e no escore de Constant e Murley.