Literature DB >> 35033147

Concomitant glenohumeral injuries in patients with distal clavicle fractures undergoing arthroscopic-assisted surgery: a systematic review.

Theodorakys Marín Fermín1, Filippo Migliorini2, Emmanuel Papakostas1, Khalid Al-Khelaifi1, David Ricardo Maldonado3, Jean Michel Hovsepian4, Nicola Maffulli5,6,7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To determine the incidence of concomitant intra-articular glenohumeral injuries in patients undergoing surgical management from distal clavicle fractures (DCF) with shoulder arthroscopy and their impact on outcome.
METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Virtual Health Library databases were accessed in October 2021. All the clinical studies evaluating the surgical management of DCF and using concomitant intra-operatory shoulder arthroscopy were included. Studies that did not specify the concomitant injury type were not eligible. Data from the incidence of intra-articular glenohumeral injuries, injury type, length of the follow-up, and clinical outcomes were retrieved. The quantitative content assessment was performed using the STROBE statement checklist. Evaluation of the publication bias of the included studies was performed using the risk of bias assessment tool for systematic reviews.
RESULTS: Data from five retrospective and five prospective cohort studies were analyzed. Eight of the included studies were conducted on patient cohorts with Neer type II injuries. Data pooling revealed a mean of 17.70% of concomitant glenohumeral injuries, whereas 84.21% of them required additional surgical management (Table 1). Rotator cuff injuries, labral tears, and biceps pulley lesions were the most common concomitant injuries.
CONCLUSION: Preoperative MRI or diagnostic arthroscopy to evaluate glenohumeral associated injuries to DCF should be recommended.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroscopy; Distal clavicle fractures; Glenohumeral

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35033147      PMCID: PMC8761272          DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-02919-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res        ISSN: 1749-799X            Impact factor:   2.359


Introduction

Clavicle fractures account approximately 2.6–4% of all fractures in the adult population [1, 2]. Of them, distal clavicle fractures (DCF) account up to 28% [1, 2]. The majority of DCF occur after a direct fall over the shoulder or, in smaller part, after a fall on outstretched hand [3-6]. Management of DCF can be challenging. Most classifications for DCF are mainly based on the configurations of bone fragments (stable or unstable) and the location in relation to the coracoclavicular ligaments [3, 7–10]. Stable lesions can be treated conservatively; however, failing to identify unstable lesions could result in pseudoarthrosis/nonunion and poor shoulder function [11-14]. Several surgical techniques have been described to manage unstable DCF, but to the best of our knowledge, no consensus has been reached [11, 15–18]. Surgical management can be categorized as rigid (locking and hook plates) and elastic (Kirshner-wire fixation, tension band wiring, suture anchors, button suture systems) fracture fixation, or a combination of both. The surgical procedure can be open, arthroscopically assisted, or fully arthroscopic [17, 19]. The incidence of associated lesion after DCF is highly variable [6, 20–24]. Preoperative physical examination to investigate concomitant injuries to DCF can be difficult because of pain and inflammation. Moreover, MRI or diagnostic arthroscopy of the glenohumeral joint to investigate associated is not routinely performed [24]. This systematic review investigated the incidence of concomitant intra-articular glenohumeral injuries in patients undergoing surgical management of DCF using concomitant intra-operative shoulder arthroscopy.

Methods

Search strategy

This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [25]. Two independent reviewers (T.M.F., J.M.H.) accessed PubMed, EMBASE, and Virtual Health Library databases in October 2021. The following terms "distal clavicle fracture" and "arthroscopy” were used alone and in combination with the Boolean operators AND and OR. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established before the search and were used to identify potentially eligible studies by title and abstract screening. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by a third investigator (E.P.). The bibliography of the included studies was screened by hand to identify additional studies.

Eligibility criteria

All the clinical studies evaluating the surgical management of DCF and using concomitant intra-operatory shoulder arthroscopy were included. Only studies in English were included. Only studies published in peer reviewed journal with a minimum of 5 patients were considered. Reviews, comments, opinions, and editorials were not eligible. Studies which reported data on insolated DCF without arthroscopy were not eligible. Studies which did not specify the concomitant injury type were also not eligible. Studies which reported shoulder injuries associated with DCF in other forms rather than a direct arthroscopic visualization were not included.

Data extraction

Two independent investigators (T.M.F., J.M.H) performed data extraction. Studies generalities (author, year, type of study, and level of evidence) were extracted. Data from the following endpoints were retrieved: number of patients, classification, incidence of intra-articular glenohumeral injuries, injury type, length of the follow-up, clinical outcomes.

Methodological quality assessment

The quantitative content assessment was performed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: the STROBE statement checklist (SSc) [26].

Assessment of publication bias

Evaluation of the publication bias of the included studies was performed using the risk of bias assessment tool for systematic reviews (ROBIS) [27]. This tool was developed to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The ROBIS is composed by three parts: (1) assessment of relevance (optional), (2) identification of concerns with the review process (study eligibility criteria; identification and selection of studies; data collection and study appraisal; and synthesis and findings), and (3) evaluation of the risk of bias in the review process, results and conclusions.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 19 and Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft, USA). Data were presented in tables using absolute values, standard deviations, and percentages from individual studies. Values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Search results

The initial literature search yielded 74 potentially relevant records after the removal of duplicates (N = 27). Titles and abstracts were screened, and 18 articles for full-text evaluation were retrieved. Seven studies met the predetermined eligibility criteria [21–24, 28–30], and three additional studies were included after citation screening [31-33] (Fig. 1). There were five retrospective [21, 24, 28, 31, 32] and five prospective cohort studies [22, 23, 29, 30, 33].
Fig. 1

Flow chart of the literature search

Flow chart of the literature search The SSc was used to assess the quality of individual studies in the present investigation (Table 1). The average SSc value was 26.30 of 32 (range 22–31), indicating a good quality of the methodological assessment.
Table 1

STROBE Statement checklist score of included cohort studies

StudyYearsLevel of evidenceScore (max. 32)
Dey Hazra et al. [31]2020IV29
Helfen et al. [24]2018IV31
Kuner et al. [32]2018IV26
Sautet et al. [21]2018IV25
Xiong et al. [29]2018IV29
Blake et al. [22]2017IV22
Cisneros and Reiriz [28]2017IV25
Beirer et al. [23]2015IV26
Kraus et al. [33]2015IV27
Loriaut et al. [30]2013IV23
STROBE Statement checklist score of included cohort studies The risk of bias in the review was low (Fig. 2). A low heterogeneity among the included studies was observed in the arthroscopic assessment of intra-articular glenohumeral concomitant injuries, in the standardization of the surgical procedure, and postoperative management. Most studies clearly defined the type of lesion and referred to standardized classifications.
Fig. 2

Assessment of publication bias

Assessment of publication bias

Synthesis of Results

Eight of the included studies were conducted on patient cohorts with Neer type II injuries [21, 22, 24, 28–30, 32, 33]. Data pooling revealed a mean of 17.70% of concomitant glenohumeral injuries, whereas 84.21% of them required additional surgical management (Table 2).
Table 2

Incidence of intra-articular injuries in distal clavicular fractures and injury type among the included studies

StudyNumber of patientsFracture classificationIncidence of intra-articular injuriesInjury typeFollow-up (mean)Outcomes

Dey Hazra et al. [31]

2020

Retrospective cohort study

8Jäger and Breitner IIA/Neer IIB37.5% (3 patients)

Labral tear (1)

SLAP lesion (1)

Pulley lesion (1)

Biceps tendon lesion (1)

PASTA – Ellman A1 (1)

SSC partial rupture – Fox and Romeo 2 (1)

SGHL injury (1)

36 (36.6 ± 14.3) months

Outcome differences were not evaluated

Additional surgical treatment was required in patients with concomitant injuries

Helfen et al. [24]

2018

Retrospective cohort study

41Neer type II27% (11 patients)

SLAP lesion (1)

SSP transmural tears (3)

SSP partial ruptures (5)

SSC partial rupture (1)

Pulley lesion (1)

Bankart lesions (2)

12 months

No outcome differences in Constant score and Oxford shoulder score were found regarding concomitant injuries

Additional surgical treatment, other than debridement, was required in 5 patients with concomitant injuries

Out of 11 patients with concomitant glenohumeral injuries, five of them were diagnosed during the primary arthroscopy, and six of them during the diagnostic arthroscopy at the time of hardware removal

In the subgroup of existing concomitant injuries, out of all measured functional outcome parameters implant removal and late arthroscopy benefitted patients' functional outcomes

Kuner et al. [32]

2018

Retrospective cohort study

20Neer type II0%None12–50 (18.7) months

Sautet et al. [21]

2018

Retrospective cohort study

14Neer type IIb0%None6–55 (20) months

Xiong et al. [29]

2018

Prospective cohort study

28Neer type II14.29% (4 patients)

Bankart lesion (1)

Rotator cuff injury (1)

Glenolabral articular disruption (1)

Acromioclavicular joint arthritis (1)

7–160 (57) months

Concomitant injuries were repaired arthroscopically at the time of fracture fixation

Rehabilitation time was lengthened in patients with concomitant injuries

Outcome differences were not evaluated

Blake et al. [22]

2017

Prospective cohort study

17Neer type II0%NoneThe mean duration from surgery to the most recent follow-up was 12 months

Cisneros and Reiriz [28]

2017

Retrospective cohort study

9Neer type IIb22.22% (2 patients)Rotator cuff tears (2)46–52 (49) months

Concomitant injuries were repaired when detected

Outcome differences were not evaluated

Beirer et al. [23]

2015

Prospective cohort study

28Jäger and Breitner I, II, and III46% (13 patients)

SLAP (4)

Pulley lesions – Habermeyer III (3)

PASTA (1)

SSC lesion – Fox and Romeo II (1)

Additional surgical treatment was required in 8 of 13 (61.54%) patients with concomitant injuries

Outcome differences were not evaluated

Kraus et al. [33]

2015

Prospective cohort study

20Neer type II10% (2 patients)SSC tear – Fox and Romero I and II (2)13–38 (23) months

Patients with concomitant injuries required surgical treatment

Outcome differences were not evaluated

Loriaut et al. [30]

2013

Prospective cohort study

24Neer type IIb8.33% (2 patients)

Rotator cuff injury (1)

Labral tear (1)

24–51 (35) months

Patients with concomitant injuries required surgical repair

Outcome differences were not evaluated

Total20917.70%
Incidence of intra-articular injuries in distal clavicular fractures and injury type among the included studies Dey Hazra et al. [31] 2020 Retrospective cohort study Labral tear (1) SLAP lesion (1) Pulley lesion (1) Biceps tendon lesion (1) PASTA – Ellman A1 (1) SSC partial rupture – Fox and Romeo 2 (1) SGHL injury (1) Outcome differences were not evaluated Additional surgical treatment was required in patients with concomitant injuries Helfen et al. [24] 2018 Retrospective cohort study SLAP lesion (1) SSP transmural tears (3) SSP partial ruptures (5) SSC partial rupture (1) Pulley lesion (1) Bankart lesions (2) No outcome differences in Constant score and Oxford shoulder score were found regarding concomitant injuries Additional surgical treatment, other than debridement, was required in 5 patients with concomitant injuries Out of 11 patients with concomitant glenohumeral injuries, five of them were diagnosed during the primary arthroscopy, and six of them during the diagnostic arthroscopy at the time of hardware removal In the subgroup of existing concomitant injuries, out of all measured functional outcome parameters implant removal and late arthroscopy benefitted patients' functional outcomes Kuner et al. [32] 2018 Retrospective cohort study Sautet et al. [21] 2018 Retrospective cohort study Xiong et al. [29] 2018 Prospective cohort study Bankart lesion (1) Rotator cuff injury (1) Glenolabral articular disruption (1) Acromioclavicular joint arthritis (1) Concomitant injuries were repaired arthroscopically at the time of fracture fixation Rehabilitation time was lengthened in patients with concomitant injuries Outcome differences were not evaluated Blake et al. [22] 2017 Prospective cohort study Cisneros and Reiriz [28] 2017 Retrospective cohort study Concomitant injuries were repaired when detected Outcome differences were not evaluated Beirer et al. [23] 2015 Prospective cohort study SLAP (4) Pulley lesions – Habermeyer III (3) PASTA (1) SSC lesion – Fox and Romeo II (1) Additional surgical treatment was required in 8 of 13 (61.54%) patients with concomitant injuries Outcome differences were not evaluated Kraus et al. [33] 2015 Prospective cohort study Patients with concomitant injuries required surgical treatment Outcome differences were not evaluated Loriaut et al. [30] 2013 Prospective cohort study Rotator cuff injury (1) Labral tear (1) Patients with concomitant injuries required surgical repair Outcome differences were not evaluated Helfen et al. [24] assessed the clinical outcomes in patients with and without concomitant injuries, finding no differences in Constant and Oxford shoulder score at last follow-up. Xiong et al. [29] reported a prolonged rehabilitation in patients with concomitant injuries. Concomitant glenohumeral injuries were summarized (Table 3).
Table 3

Distribution of concomitant injuries according to their type in distal clavicular fractures among the included studies

Injury type (number of injuries)%
ROTATOR CUFF INJURY (19)50.00
 SSP partial ruptures (5)26.32
 SSC tears (5)26.32
 Non-specified (4)21.05
 SSP transmural tears (3)15.79
 PASTA (2)10.53
LABRAL TEAR (12)31.58
 SLAP lesion (6)50
 Bankart lesions (3)25
 Non-specified (2)16.67
 Glenolabral articular disruption (1)8.33
PULLEY LESION (5)13.16
OTHER INJURIES (2)5.26
 Biceps tendon lesion (1)
 SGHL injury (1)

The bold values correspond to the total of those types of injuries

PASTA: partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion; SGHL: superior glenohumeral ligament; SLAP: superior labrum anterior–posterior; SSC: subscapularis; SSP: supraspinatus

Distribution of concomitant injuries according to their type in distal clavicular fractures among the included studies The bold values correspond to the total of those types of injuries PASTA: partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion; SGHL: superior glenohumeral ligament; SLAP: superior labrum anterior–posterior; SSC: subscapularis; SSP: supraspinatus

Discussion

The present systematic review highlighted that 17.70% of patients with acute DCF evidenced concomitant glenohumeral injuries. Rotator cuff injuries, labral tears, and biceps pulley lesions were the most common concomitant injuries, requiring additional surgical treatment in 84.21% of cases. This incidence is similar to those reported following after acromioclavicular dislocations [20]. This similarity may result from to the similar mechanism of injury [6]. Preoperative MRI or diagnostic arthroscopy to evaluate glenohumeral associated injuries to DCF should be recommended. The management of concomitant injuries to the DFC have demonstrated clinical improvement and may avoid persistent symptoms and early onset of degenerative changes [34-36]. However, the current evidence is not strong enough to ascertain whether concomitant glenohumeral injuries in DCF may affect the final outcome of management of these injuries. DCF have been traditionally managed through open approaches with very satisfying outcomes, and further imaging or arthroscopic assessments are related to increased surgical time and costs [28, 37]. However, the acute pain following an acute DCF, or the administration of pain medications, may jeopardize the presence of concomitant shoulder injuries. Therefore, the presence of concomitant injuries should be evaluated using preoperative MRI or diagnostic arthroscopy in patients with DCF. Whether to combine the management of DCF with a simultaneous or delayed additional glenohumeral intervention should be evaluated for each patient, and surgery should be individualized. This study has several limitations. The small number of included studies and relatively small sample size is the most important limitation of the present systematic review. The retrospective nature of 50% (5 of 10) of included studies increases the risk of selection bias. None of the included studies performed randomization or blinding, thus increasing the risk of detection bias. Most of the included studies were conducted on patients with DCF type II according to the Neer [7]. Thus, results from this systematic review may be not fully generalized. Further high-quality investigations should be performed to overcome current limitations and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of simultaneous glenohumeral interventions.

Conclusion

17.70% of patients with a DCF evidenced concomitant glenohumeral injuries. Rotator cuff injuries, labral tears, and biceps pulley lesions were the most common concomitant injuries, requiring additional surgical treatment in 84.21% of cases. Preoperative MRI or diagnostic arthroscopy to evaluate glenohumeral associated injuries to DCF should be recommended.
  35 in total

1.  Fracture of the distal clavicle with detachment of the coracoclavicular ligaments in adults.

Authors:  C S NEER
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  1963-03

2.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Arthroscopically assisted stabilization of displaced lateral clavicle fractures with coracoclavicular instability.

Authors:  Natascha Kraus; Verena Stein; Christian Gerhardt; Markus Scheibel
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Fixation method for treatment of unstable distal clavicle fracture: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Manusak Boonard; Sermsak Sumanont; Alisara Arirachakaran; Eakachit Sikarinkul; Pichet Ratanapongpean; Wichan Kanchanatawan; Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-03-22

Review 5.  Treatment of distal clavicle fracture: a systematic review of treatment modalities in 425 fractures.

Authors:  Joo Han Oh; Sae Hoon Kim; Jung Ha Lee; Seung Han Shin; Hyun Sik Gong
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  [Outcome of surgically treated lateral clavicle fractures].

Authors:  M Krüger-Franke; G Köhne; B Rosemeyer
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.000

7.  Estimating the risk of nonunion following nonoperative treatment of a clavicular fracture.

Authors:  C Michael Robinson; Charles M Court-Brown; Margaret M McQueen; Alison E Wakefield
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  The mechanism of clavicular fracture. A clinical and biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  D Stanley; E A Trowbridge; S H Norris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1988-05

9.  Concomitant glenohumeral injuries in Neer type II distal clavicle fractures.

Authors:  Tobias Helfen; Georg Siebenbürger; Florian Haasters; Wolfgang Böcker; Ben Ockert
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Treatment of unstable distal clavicle fractures (Neer type II): A comparison of three internal fixation methods.

Authors:  Jian Xiong; Jian-Hai Chen; Yu Dang; Dian-Ying Zhang; Zhong-Guo Fu; Pei-Xun Zhang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 1.671

View more
  3 in total

1.  Conoid tubercle angle: attention should be paid to supraclavicular plate fixation.

Authors:  Bin Zhao; Wenqian Zhao; Isaac Assan; Rongxiu Bi
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-02-19       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 2.  What is the optimal surgical treatment for Neer type IIB (IIC) distal clavicle fractures? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andreas Panagopoulos; Konstantina Solou; Irini Tatani; Ioannis K Triantafyllopoulos; John Lakoumentas; Antonis Kouzelis; Vasileios Athanasiou; Zinon T Kokkalis
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 2.359

3.  The Accuracy of Distal Clavicle Fracture Classifications-Do We Need an Amendment to Imaging Modalities or Fracture Typing?

Authors:  Evi Fleischhacker; Georg Siebenbürger; Johannes Gleich; Wolfgang Böcker; Fabian Gilbert; Tobias Helfen
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-24       Impact factor: 4.964

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.