BACKGROUND: Displaced ipsilateral fractures of the clavicle and the glenoid neck are a complex injury pattern that is usually the result of high-energy trauma. The treatment of these injuries is controversial, as good results have been reported with both operative and nonoperative treatment. METHODS: Nineteen patients who had sustained a displaced fracture of the glenoid neck with an ipsilateral clavicular fracture or acromioclavicular separation (floating shoulder) were retrospectively evaluated. The treatment was nonoperative in twelve patients and operative in seven. At the time of final follow-up, standard radiographs were made and all patients were examined by a physical therapist and either a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon or an orthopaedic traumatologist. In addition, each patient responded to three different validated objective functional outcome measures: the Short Form-36, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Scale, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire. Isokinetic strength-testing was performed, and strength in internal and external rotation was compared with that of the uninvolved shoulder. The main outcome measures included fracture-healing, functional outcome, patient satisfaction, and muscular strength. RESULTS: With regard to range of motion, only the amount of forward flexion was found to be significantly greater in the operatively treated group (p = 0.03). The operatively treated shoulders were found to be weaker in external rotation at 300 degrees /sec and weaker in internal rotation at 180 degrees /sec. When normalized to hand dominance, however, the numbers were too small to identify any significant difference. There was no significant difference between groups with regard to the three functional outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Good results may be seen both with and without operative treatment. Therefore, we cannot universally recommend operative treatment for a double disruption of the superior suspensory shoulder complex. Treatment must be individualized for each patient.
BACKGROUND: Displaced ipsilateral fractures of the clavicle and the glenoid neck are a complex injury pattern that is usually the result of high-energy trauma. The treatment of these injuries is controversial, as good results have been reported with both operative and nonoperative treatment. METHODS: Nineteen patients who had sustained a displaced fracture of the glenoid neck with an ipsilateral clavicular fracture or acromioclavicular separation (floating shoulder) were retrospectively evaluated. The treatment was nonoperative in twelve patients and operative in seven. At the time of final follow-up, standard radiographs were made and all patients were examined by a physical therapist and either a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon or an orthopaedic traumatologist. In addition, each patient responded to three different validated objective functional outcome measures: the Short Form-36, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Scale, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire. Isokinetic strength-testing was performed, and strength in internal and external rotation was compared with that of the uninvolved shoulder. The main outcome measures included fracture-healing, functional outcome, patient satisfaction, and muscular strength. RESULTS: With regard to range of motion, only the amount of forward flexion was found to be significantly greater in the operatively treated group (p = 0.03). The operatively treated shoulders were found to be weaker in external rotation at 300 degrees /sec and weaker in internal rotation at 180 degrees /sec. When normalized to hand dominance, however, the numbers were too small to identify any significant difference. There was no significant difference between groups with regard to the three functional outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Good results may be seen both with and without operative treatment. Therefore, we cannot universally recommend operative treatment for a double disruption of the superior suspensory shoulder complex. Treatment must be individualized for each patient.
Authors: Apostolos Dimitroulias; Kenneth G Molinero; Daniel E Krenk; Matthew T Muffly; Daniel T Altman; Gregory T Altman Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 4.176