R Singh1, R Rambani, N Kanakaris, P V Giannoudis. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK. rahulsingh1@doctors.org.uk
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clavicle fractures can cause pain and functional impairment if not managed appropriately. This article evaluates the prevalence of clavicular fractures, estimates the number of cases requiring operative treatment, evaluates whether removal of implant is a frequent necessity and compares the final functional outcome of the operative and non-operative groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2005 and November 2007, patients with clavicular fractures were eligible for participation. Patients below 18 years of age and those with pathological fractures were excluded. Demographic details, mechanism of injury, operative versus non-operative treatment, radiographic classification (Allman system), complications, implant removal and functional outcome using the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder-rating score were documented and analysed. RESULTS: Out of 16,280 fractures that presented to our University Teaching Hospitals, 200 (1.23%) met the inclusion criteria. As many as 20 patients were lost due to natural attrition. A total of 159 (88.3%) patients were treated non-operatively and 21 (11.7%) patients were operated upon, over half of them for symptomatic non-union. All clavicles united postoperatively. Eighty-one conservatively managed undisplaced medial, middle and lateral end fractures had excellent mean UCLA shoulder scores. A statistical significance in UCLA scores (p<0.05) was noted between the operative and non-operative patient groups in mid-shaft fractures. There was no statistical difference between the operative and non-operative groups in lateral-end fractures. A total of 42.9% required removal of metal implant due to soft tissue irritation with complete resolution of symptoms. CONCLUSION: The incidence of clavicle fractures was 1.23%. A small number of patients (11.7%) required operative treatment. We recommend surgical management of symptomatic non-union and removal of metal implant for hardware-related irritation.
INTRODUCTION: Clavicle fractures can cause pain and functional impairment if not managed appropriately. This article evaluates the prevalence of clavicular fractures, estimates the number of cases requiring operative treatment, evaluates whether removal of implant is a frequent necessity and compares the final functional outcome of the operative and non-operative groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2005 and November 2007, patients with clavicular fractures were eligible for participation. Patients below 18 years of age and those with pathological fractures were excluded. Demographic details, mechanism of injury, operative versus non-operative treatment, radiographic classification (Allman system), complications, implant removal and functional outcome using the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder-rating score were documented and analysed. RESULTS: Out of 16,280 fractures that presented to our University Teaching Hospitals, 200 (1.23%) met the inclusion criteria. As many as 20 patients were lost due to natural attrition. A total of 159 (88.3%) patients were treated non-operatively and 21 (11.7%) patients were operated upon, over half of them for symptomatic non-union. All clavicles united postoperatively. Eighty-one conservatively managed undisplaced medial, middle and lateral end fractures had excellent mean UCLA shoulder scores. A statistical significance in UCLA scores (p<0.05) was noted between the operative and non-operative patient groups in mid-shaft fractures. There was no statistical difference between the operative and non-operative groups in lateral-end fractures. A total of 42.9% required removal of metal implant due to soft tissue irritation with complete resolution of symptoms. CONCLUSION: The incidence of clavicle fractures was 1.23%. A small number of patients (11.7%) required operative treatment. We recommend surgical management of symptomatic non-union and removal of metal implant for hardware-related irritation.
Authors: Christopher Vannabouathong; Justin Chiu; Rahil Patel; Shreyas Sreeraman; Elias Mohamed; Mohit Bhandari; Kenneth Koval; Michael D McKee Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-05-04