Dataset Information

Operative versus nonoperative interventions for common fractures of the clavicle: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The popularity of surgery for acute displaced midshaft clavicle fractures has been fuelled by early randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing improved rates of radiographic union and perceived functional benefits compared with nonoperative approaches. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effect of operative and nonoperative interventions on the risk of secondary operation and complications and on long-term function.

Methods

We search MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for reports of relevant RCTs published to Mar. 7, 2014. Two reviewers assessed eligibility of potential reports and the risk of bias of included trials. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to summarize the quality of evidence for all outcomes.

Results

We included 15 RCTs (9 trials comparing operative and nonoperative interventions, 5 comparing implants for operative treatment, and 1 comparing nonoperative treatments). Nonoperative treatments did not differ from operative treatments in the risk of secondary operation (risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 2.35) or all complications (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50). One in 4 patients had a complication regardless of the treatment approach. Differences in functional outcomes, although smaller than the threshold for minimal important differences at 1 year, favoured operative interventions (standardized mean difference 0.38, 95% CI 0 to 0.75). Evidence for the type of implant or approach to nonoperative treatment remained inconclusive.

Interpretation

Current evidence does not support the routine use of internal fixation for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Complication rates were high regardless of the treatment approach.

SUBMITTER: Devji T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4701658 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Operative versus nonoperative interventions for common fractures of the clavicle: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Devji Tahira T Kleinlugtenbelt Ydo Y Evaniew Nathan N Ristevski Bill B Khoudigian Shoghag S Bhandari Mohit M

CMAJ open 20151001 4

<h4>Background</h4>The popularity of surgery for acute displaced midshaft clavicle fractures has been fuelled by early randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing improved rates of radiographic union and perceived functional benefits compared with nonoperative approaches. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effect of operative and nonoperative interventions on the risk of secondary operation and complications and on long-term function.<h4>Methods</h4>We search MEDLINE, Embase and the C ...[more]

PMID: 26770963

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMidshaft clavicular fractures are common amongst young adults. Conservative or surgical treatment for definitive fracture management has been widely debate, both with their pros and cons. Previous meta-analyses compared the clinical outcomes between conservative and surgical treatment options of midshaft clavicular fractures but failed to elucidate any difference in functional improvement. We postulate that functional improvement after fracture union plateaus and the clinical outcome after treatment varies at different time points. This meta-analysis will focus on the synthesis comparison of outcomes at early, short-term results (3 months), intermediate-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (>24 months) clinical outcomes.MethodsA systematic search was done on databases (Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane) in June 2021. Search keywords were: midshaft clavicular fractures and clinical trials. Clinical trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected for comparison and the clinical outcomes of midshaft clavicular fractures using surgical and non-surgical interventions in terms of improvement in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, Constant-Murley Score (CMS), time to union and risk ratio of treatment related complications were analysed in correlation with post-treatment timeframe.ResultsOf the 3094 patients of mean age 36.7 years in the 31 selected studies, surgical intervention was associated with improved DASH score (standard-mean difference SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.07, p = 0.003; mean difference MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.93 to -0.51, p = 0.005), CMS (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.17-0.72, p = 0.001; MD 3.64, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.19, p = 0.005), time to union (non-adjusted SMD -2.83, 95% CI -4.59 to -1.07, p = 0.002; adjusted SMD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41, p<0.001) and risk ratio of bone-related complications including bone non-union, malunion and implant failure (0.21, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.42; p<0.001). Subgroup analysis based on time period after treatment showed that surgical intervention was far superior in terms of improved DASH score at the intermediate-term results (6-12 months later, SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.02, p = 0.02; and long term results (>24 months SMD -4.24, 95% CI -7.03 to -1.45, p = 0.003) and CMS (>24 months, SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.68, p = 0.002; MD 5.77, 95% CI 1.63 to 9.91, p = 0.006). Surgical outcome is independent of fixation with plates or intra-medullary nails.ConclusionSurgical intervention was associated with better clinical outcomes compared with non-surgical approach for midshaft clavicular fractures in terms of improvement in functional scores DASH, CMS, time to union and fracture related complications, although not to the minimal clinically significant difference. Benefits in the long-term functional improvements are more pronounced.

Project description:ImportanceNo consensus has been reached to date regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures. The international rate of operative treatment has been increasing, despite higher costs and limited functional outcome evidence to support this shift.ObjectivesTo compare functional, clinical, and radiologic outcomes after operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures in adults.Data sourcesThe PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases were searched from inception to June 15, 2019, for studies comparing operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting on the following: acute distal radius fracture with operative treatment (internal or external fixation) vs nonoperative treatment (cast immobilization, splinting, or bracing); patients 18 years or older; and functional outcome. Studies in a language other than English or reporting treatment for refracture were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Effect estimates were pooled using random-effects models and presented as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed in September 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measures included medium-term functional outcome measured with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) and the overall complication rate after operative and nonoperative treatment.ResultsA total of 23 unique studies were included, consisting of 8 RCTs and 15 observational studies, that described 2254 unique patients. Among the studies that presented sex data, 1769 patients were women [80.6%]. Overall weighted mean age was 67 [range, 22-90] years). The RCTs included 656 patients (29.1%); observational studies, 1598 patients (70.9%). The overall pooled effect estimates the showed a significant improvement in medium-term (≤1 year) DASH score after operative treatment compared with nonoperative treatment (MD, -5.22 [95% CI, -8.87 to -1.57]; P = .005; I2 = 84%). No difference in complication rate was observed (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]; P = .87; I2 = 62%). A significant improvement in grip strength was noted after operative treatment, measured in kilograms (MD, 2.73 [95% CI, 0.15-5.32]; P = .04; I2 = 79%) and as a percentage of the unaffected side (MD, 8.21 [95% CI, 2.26-14.15]; P = .007; I2 = 76%). No improvement in medium-term DASH score was found in the subgroup of studies that only included patients 60 years or older (MD, -0.98 [95% CI, -3.52 to 1.57]; P = .45; I2 = 34%]), compared with a larger improvement in medium-term DASH score after operative treatment in the other studies that included patients 18 years or older (MD, -7.50 [95% CI, -12.40 to -2.60]; P = .003; I2 = 77%); the difference between these subgroups was statically significant (test for subgroup differences, P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceThis meta-analysis suggests that operative treatment of distal radius fractures improves the medium-term DASH score and grip strength compared with nonoperative treatment in adults, with no difference in overall complication rate. The findings suggest that operative treatment might be more effective and have a greater effect on the health and well-being of younger, nonelderly patients.

Project description:BackgroundA few studies focused on open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients have been published, all of whom had a low number of patients. In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we aimed to assess the effect of ORIF or nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients on the clinical outcomes and re-evaluate of the potential benefits of conservative treatment.MethodsWe searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomized controlled trials comparing ORIF and nonoperative treatment of displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. Our outcome measures were the Constant scores.ResultsThree randomized controlled trials with a total of 130 patients were identified and analyzed. The overall results based on fixed-effect model did not support the treatment of open reduction and internal fixation to improve the functional outcome when compared with nonoperative treatment for treating elderly patients with displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures (WMD -0.51, 95% CI: -7.25 to 6.22, P = 0.88, I(2) = 0%).ConclusionsAlthough our meta-analysis did not support the treatment of open reduction and internal fixation to improve the functional outcome when compared with nonoperative treatment for treating elderly patients with displaced 3-part or 4-part proximal humeral fractures, this result must be considered in the context of variable patient demographics. Only a limited recommendation can be made based on current data. Considering the limitations of included studies, a large, well designed trial that incorporates the evaluation of clinically relevant outcomes in participants with different underlying risks of shoulder function is required to more adequately assess the role for ORIF or nonoperative treatment.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare re-rupture rate, complication rate, and functional outcome after operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures; to compare re-rupture rate after early and late full weight bearing; to evaluate re-rupture rate after functional rehabilitation with early range of motion; and to compare effect estimates from randomised controlled trials and observational studies.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were last searched on 25 April 2018 for studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures.Study selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials and observational studies reporting on comparison of operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures.Data extractionData extraction was performed independently in pairs, by four reviewers, with the use of a predefined data extraction file. Outcomes were pooled using random effects models and presented as risk difference, risk ratio, or mean difference, with 95% confidence interval.Results29 studies were included-10 randomised controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The 10 trials included 944 (6%) patients, and the 19 observational studies included 14?918 (94%) patients. A significant reduction in re-ruptures was seen after operative treatment (2.3%) compared with nonoperative treatment (3.9%) (risk difference 1.6%; risk ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.60; P<0.001; I2=22%). Operative treatment resulted in a significantly higher complication rate than nonoperative treatment (4.9% v 1.6%; risk difference 3.3%; risk ratio 2.76, 1.84 to 4.13; P<0.001; I2=45%). The main difference in complication rate was attributable to the incidence of infection (2.8%) in the operative group. A similar reduction in re-rupture rate in favour of operative treatment was seen after both early and late full weight bearing. No significant difference in re-rupture rate was seen between operative and nonoperative treatment in studies that used accelerated functional rehabilitation with early range of motion (risk ratio 0.60, 0.26 to 1.37; P=0.23; I2=0%). No difference in effect estimates was seen between randomised controlled trials and observational studies.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures reduces the risk of re-rupture compared with nonoperative treatment. However, re-rupture rates are low and differences between treatment groups are small (risk difference 1.6%). Operative treatment results in a higher risk of other complications (risk difference 3.3%). The final decision on the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures should be based on patient specific factors and shared decision making. This review emphasises the potential benefits of adding high quality observational studies in meta-analyses for the evaluation of objective outcome measures after surgical treatment.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of operative compared with nonoperative treatment at initial presentation (no prior fusion) for adult lumbar scoliosis has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated in controlled trials. The goals of this study were to evaluate the effects of operative and nonoperative treatment and to assess the benefits of these treatments to help treating physicians determine whether patients are better managed operatively or nonoperatively.MethodsPatients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (aged 40 to 80 years, with a coronal Cobb angle measurement of ≥30° and an Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score of ≥20 or Scoliosis Research Society [SRS]-22 score of ≤4.0) from 9 North American centers were enrolled in concurrent randomized or observational cohorts to evaluate operative versus nonoperative treatment. The primary outcomes were differences in the mean change from baseline in the SRS-22 subscore and ODI at 2-year follow-up. For the randomized cohort, the initial sample-size calculation estimated that 41 patients per group (82 total) would provide 80% power with alpha equal to 0.05, anticipating 10% loss to follow-up and 20% nonadherence in the nonoperative arm. However, an interim sample-size calculation estimated that 18 patients per group would be sufficient.ResultsSixty-three patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort: 30 in the operative group and 33 in the nonoperative group. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were enrolled in the observational cohort: 112 in the operative group and 111 in the nonoperative group. The intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort found that, at 2 years of follow-up, outcomes did not differ between the groups. Nonadherence was high in the randomized cohort (64% nonoperative-to-operative crossover). In the as-treated analysis of the randomized cohort, operative treatment was associated with greater improvement at the 2-year follow-up in the SRS-22 subscore (adjusted mean difference, 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5 to 1.0]) and in the ODI (adjusted mean difference, -16 [95% CI, -22 to -10]) (p < 0.001 for both). Surgery was also superior to nonoperative care in the observational cohort at 2 years after treatment on the basis of SRS-22 subscore and ODI outcomes (p < 0.001). In an overall responder analysis, more operative patients achieved improvement meeting or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the SRS-22 subscore (85.7% versus 38.7%; p < 0.001) and the ODI (77.4% versus 38.3%; p < 0.001). Thirty-four revision surgeries were performed in 24 (14%) of the operative patients.ConclusionsOn the basis of as-treated and MCID analyses, if a patient with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis is satisfied with current spine-related health, nonoperative treatment is advised, with the understanding that improvement is unlikely. If a patient is not satisfied with current spine health and expects improvement, surgery is preferred.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Dataset Information

Operative versus nonoperative interventions for common fractures of the clavicle: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Operative versus nonoperative interventions for common fractures of the clavicle: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets