Dataset Information

Bipolar clavicular fractures and treatment options.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Fractures of the clavicle are common injuries, accounting 2.6-4% of all fractures in adults. Of these fractures, 21-28% are lateral clavicle fractures and 2-3% are medial clavicle fractures. Bipolar clavicle fractures are defined as a lateral and medial fracture and are uncommon. There is no consensus on the treatment of these fractures. The aim of this study is to provide a treatment on bipolar clavicle fractures based on the current literature.

Methods

The electronic databases PubMed, the Cochrane library and EMBASE were searched up on September 25th, 2017. Two reviewers (KR and TG) independently screened titles and abstracts for their relevance. Studies designed to evaluate the outcomes of conservative and/or operative treatment of segmental bipolar clavicle fractures in adults (> 16 years) were included. Editorials and commentaries were excluded, as well as synthetic, cadaveric and animal studies. Primary outcomes considered were pain reduction and shoulder function. Secondary outcomes considered are complications.

Results

Ten studies reporting results from ten patients were included for the review. In most patients, if treated operatively, surgical treatment with the use of double plating was performed. Only in elderly patients conservative treatment was adopted. All included patients were pain free and had a full range of motion after 3-6 months. Only two case reports provided a DASH score, while in eight studies no functional outcome score was measured.

Conclusion

A missed bipolar fracture can complicate the clinical progress. Surgical management of these fractures may be necessary; however, the treatment of choice depends on the age of the patient, daily activities and comorbidity.

SUBMITTER: de Ruiter KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8476377 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo date, it remains unclear whether superior or anterior plating is the best option for treating midshaft clavicular fractures. The aim of this study was to compare both techniques with regard to the incidence of implant removal due to implant irritation, risk of complications, time to union, and function.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, all midshaft clavicular fractures treated operatively between 2017 and 2020 in two hospitals in Switzerland were analyzed. The participating hospitals differed with regard to their standard practice; one offered superior plating only, while the other predominantly employed an anterior plate. The primary outcome was the incidence of implant removal for irritation. Secondary outcomes were time to union, complications, re-interventions, and range of motion during the follow-up period of at least 6 months.ResultsIn total, 168 patients were included in the study of which 81 (48%) received anterior plating and 87 (52%) superior plating. The overall mean age was 45 years (SD 16). There was no significant difference between anterior and superior plating with regard to implant removal (58.5% versus 57.1%, p = 0.887), infection (5.7% versus 1.8%, p = 0.071), and time to union (median 48 weeks versus 52 weeks, p = 0.643). Data on range of motion were available in 71 patients. There was no significant difference in anteflexion (median 180 degrees anterior versus 180 degrees superior) and abduction (median 180 degrees anterior versus 180 degrees superior) between the two groups.ConclusionThis retrospective cohort study did not find sufficient evidence to recommend one implant position over the other for midshaft clavicular fractures with regard to removal due to irritation. Time to union was similar and Infections were equally rare in both groups. Notably, a considerable number of patients in both groups had their implants removed due to irritation. Larger prospective studies are needed to determine how much plate position contributes to the occurrence of irritation and whether other patient or implant-related factors might play a role. Until this is clarified, implant position should be based on surgeons preference and experience.