Development of the Utrecht Score for clavicle fractures: a short and complete clavicle score with patient-reported and objective measures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a clavicle-specific questionnaire with patient-reported and objective measures. METHODS: The present study used data of DASH and Constant scores from a previously performed randomized-controlled trial comparing plate and intramedullary pin fixation of clavicle fractures. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify the most relevant items and the underlying structure of the questionnaires. To optimize the applicability to patients with a clavicle fracture, the selected items were reformulated. If relevant themes were underexposed, an additional question was added. RESULTS: Based on the scree plot of eigenvalues and the parallel analysis, a seven-factor model with good factorability was constructed. Using exploratory factor analysis, 13 patient-reported and 2 objective measurements were identified. The internal consistency of the selected questions was excellent. An additional question was added to cover complaints relating to direct pressure on the clavicle and implants. CONCLUSION: The Utrecht Score for clavicle fractures is a compact yet complete tool that was developed to assess functional outcome specifically in patients with a clavicle fracture, consisting of patient-reported and objective measures. After external validation, the USC can be used for research purposes or clinical follow-up during rehabilitation in patients with a clavicle fracture.

Surgical fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures: A systematic review of biomechanical studies.

PURPOSE: Surgical treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures requires a decision between plate fixation and intramedullary (IM) fixation. Numerous studies report on the biomechanical properties of various repair constructs. The goal of this systematic review was to provide an overview of studies describing the biomechanical properties of the most commonly used surgical fixations of midshaft clavicle fractures. Additionally, we aimed to translate these biomechanical results into clinically relevant conclusions. METHODS: A computer-aided search of the EMBASE and PudMed/MEDLINE databases was conducted. Studies included for review compared biomechanical properties of plate fixation with IM fixation and superiorly positioned plates with anteroinferiorly positioned plates for midshaft clavicle fractures. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were eligible for inclusion. Plate fixation seemed to form a more robust construct than IM fixation in terms of stiffness and failure loading. The remaining clavicle was stronger after removal of the IM device than after removal of the plate. Superior plating of transverse fractures generally seemed to provide greater stiffness and strength during bending loads than anteroinferior plating did. The absence of cortical alignment in wedge and comminuted fractures directly influenced the fixation stability for both IM fixation and plate fixation, regardless of location. CONCLUSION: Each type of fracture fixation has biomechanical advantages and disadvantages. However, exact thresholds of stiffness for inducing healing and failure strength to withstand refractures are unknown. The clinical relevance of the biomechanical studies may be arguable. Since none of the studies investigate the effect of tissue adaptation over time they should be interpreted with caution.

Intramedullary nailing of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures using a TEN with end cap: issues encountered.

The purpose of this study was to describe our experience with a possible solution for implant- related irritation after intramedullary nailing of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: the end cap. Ten patients with a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture were treated with intramedullary nailing and an end cap in 2013. Patients were followed in the outpatient clinic until fracture union. In 2015 patients were contacted again. Prospectively collected data included shoulder function and complications. The median follow-up time was 28.5 months (between 27 and 30 months). No patients were lost to follow- up. QuickDASH scores were 18.2, 9.1 and 2.3 after 6 weeks, 3 month and latest follow-up respectively. Nine patients (90%) had some type of implant-related complication. In three of these patients implant removal was required before union. One implant failure occurred which required major revision surgery using plate fixation. In conclusion, because in 70% of the patients the implant-related irritation was directly caused by the end cap, we believe end caps should not be used after intramedullary nailing for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

High Irritation and Removal Rates After Plate or Nail Fixation in Patients With Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing plate with intramedullary nail fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures show faster recovery in the plate group and implant-related complications in both groups after short-term followup (6 or 12 months). Knowledge of disability, complications, and removal rates beyond the first postoperative year will help surgeons in making a decision regarding optimal implant choice. However, comparative studies with followup beyond the first year or two are scarce. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Does plate fixation or intramedullary nail fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures result in less disability? (2) Which type of fixation, plate or intramedullary, is more frequently associated with implant-related irritation and implant removal? (3) Is plate or intramedullary fixation associated with postoperative complications beyond the first postoperative year? METHODS: Between January 2011 and August 2012, patients with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were enrolled and randomized to plate or intramedullary nail fixation. A total of 58 patients with plate and 62 patients with intramedullary nails initially were enrolled. Minimum followup was 30 months (mean, 39 months; range, 30-51 months). Two patients (3%) with plate fixation and two patients (3%) with intramedullary nails were lost to followup. The QuickDASH was obtained at final followup and compared between patients who had plate fixation and those who had intramedullary nail fixation. Postoperative complications measured include infection, implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, and refracture after implant removal. Indications for implant removal included implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, patient's wish, or surgeon's preference. RESULTS: Between patients with plate versus intramedullary nail fixation, there were no differences in QuickDASH scores (plate, 1.8 ± 3.6; intramedullary nail, 1.8 ± 7.2; mean difference, -0.7; 95% CI, -2.2 to 2.04; p = 0.95). The proportion of patients having implant-related irritation was not different (39 of 56 [70%] versus 41 of 62 [66%]; relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82-1.35; p = 0.683). Intramedullary fixation was associated with a higher likelihood of implant removal (51 of 62 [82%] versus 28 of 56 [50%]; relative risk, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.24-2.19; p < 0.001). Among the removed implants more plates than intramedullary nails were removed after the 1-year followup (12 of 28 [43%] versus six of 51 [12%]; p = 0.002). There were no infections, implant breakage, nonunions, or refractures between the 1-year and final followup in either group. CONCLUSIONS: After a mean followup of 39 months, disability scores were excellent. Major complications did not occur after the 1-year followup. A frequent and bothersome problem after both surgical treatments is implant-related irritation, resulting in high rates of implant removal, after 1 year. Future research could focus on analyzing risk factors for implant irritation or removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Anteroinferior versus superior plating of clavicular fractures.

BACKGROUND: Open reduction and plate fixation has gained recognition as an effective treatment for certain types of clavicular fractures. However, 88% of cases report some implant-related problems. To determine the optimal plate position, the aim of the present study was to compare implant-related irritation and proportion of plate removal in patients with clavicular fractures undergoing plate fixation by an anteroinferior or superior approach. METHODS: Retrospectively collected data of 39 patients who underwent anteroinferior plating for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures were compared with prospectively collected data of 60 patients who were treated with superior plate fixation as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Electronic medical records were reviewed for reports of complications, in particular, implant-related irritation and implant removal during follow-up. In addition, all patients were contacted in June 2014 to obtain additional information. The primary outcome parameter was implant-related irritation. RESULTS: Univariate and multivariate regression analysis showed plate position was not significantly associated with implant-related irritation. Higher rates of asymptomatic patients with the plate still in place were observed in the anteroinferior group (46% vs 22%, P = .01). Almost an equal percentage of implant removals was seen in both groups because of implant irritation (36% vs 37%, P = .938). CONCLUSIONS: The present study found the surgical approach of clavicular plating was not associated with implant-related irritation. Future studies are needed to determine whether there is an optimal approach for clavicle plating.

Operative treatment of dislocated midshaft clavicular fractures: plate or intramedullary nail fixation? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, the operative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures has increased. The aim of this study was to compare short and midterm results of open reduction and plate fixation with those of intramedullary nailing for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial was performed in four different hospitals. The study included 120 patients, eighteen to sixty-five years of age, treated with either open reduction and plate fixation (n = 58) or intramedullary nailing (n = 62). Preoperative and postoperative shoulder function scores and complications were documented until one year postoperatively. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: No significant differences in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) or Constant-Murley score (3.0 and 96.0 points for the plate group and 5.6 and 95.5 points for the nailing group) were noted between the two surgical interventions at six months postoperatively. Until six months after the surgery, the plate-fixation group experienced less disability than the nailing group as indicated by the area under the curve of the DASH scores for this time period (p = 0.02). The mean numbers of complications per patient, irrespective of their severity, were similar between the plate-fixation (0.67) and nailing (0.74) groups (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The patients in the plate-fixation group recovered faster than the patients in the intramedullary nailing group, but the groups had similar results at six months postoperatively and the time of final follow-up. The rate of complications requiring revision surgery was low. Implant-related complications occurred frequently and could often be treated by implant removal.