ABSTRACT
In recent decades, there has been a growing trend to the operative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. Open reduction and internal plate fixation, and intramedullary nailing fixation are 2 of the widely used techniques for operative treatment, but the optimal fixation method for these types of fractures remains a topic of debate. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures by comparing their clinical results.Literature searches of the Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were performed from 1966 to April, 2015. Only randomized controlled clinical trials comparing plate and intramedullary nailing treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were included. Literature was screened, data were extracted, and methodological quality of the eligible trials was assessed by 2 independent reviewers accordingly.Seven randomized controlled trials involving 421 patients were included. Compared to intramedullary nailing fixation, plate fixation had a relatively longer mean surgical time and a trend towards a faster functional improvement during the first 6 months after surgery; apart from this, the pooled results revealed no significant differences in functional scores after 6 months postoperatively, complication rate and patients' satisfaction between plate fixation and intramedullary fixation.Our results demonstrated that these 2 methods were comparable and safe in the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. We advocate both techniques for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures, and the superior surgical technique was those that the surgeon was originally trained to perform.
Subject(s)
Bone Plates , Clavicle/injuries , Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary/instrumentation , Fractures, Bone/surgery , Bone Nails , Humans , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
Literature searches of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases were performed from 1966 to September 2014. Only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical trials comparing operative and nonoperative treatments for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were included. Data collection and extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were performed according to the Cochrane standards. Thirteen studies were considered in the meta-analysis. Constant scores and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were improved in the operative fixation group at a follow up of one year or more. The nonunion and symptomatic malunion rates were significantly lower in the operative group. Additionally, the nonoperative group had a higher likelihood of neurological symptoms compared with the operative group. A significantly higher risk of complications was found in patients treated conservatively than in those who underwent operative fixation. However, when patients with nonunion and symptomatic malunion were excluded from the analysis, no significant differences in the complication rate were found. We concluded that based on the current clinical reports, operative treatment is superior to nonoperative treatment in the management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. However, we do not support the routine use of primary operative fixation for all displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adults.
Subject(s)
Clavicle/injuries , Fractures, Bone/therapy , Bone Nails , Bone Plates , Female , Fracture Fixation, Internal/methods , Fractures, Bone/surgery , Humans , Male , Publication Bias , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Literature searches of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases were performed from 1966 to September 2014. Only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical trials comparing operative and nonoperative treatments for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were included. Data collection and extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were performed according to the Cochrane standards. Thirteen studies were considered in the meta-analysis. Constant scores and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were improved in the operative fixation group at a follow up of one year or more. The nonunion and symptomatic malunion rates were significantly lower in the operative group. Additionally, the nonoperative group had a higher likelihood of neurological symptoms compared with the operative group. A significantly higher risk of complications was found in patients treated conservatively than in those who underwent operative fixation. However, when patients with nonunion and symptomatic malunion were excluded from the analysis, no significant differences in the complication rate were found. We concluded that based on the current clinical reports, operative treatment is superior to nonoperative treatment in the management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. However, we do not support the routine use of primary operative fixation for all displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adults.
