TS19: CLAVICLE FRACTURES IN 2008 – WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

Abstract

Rates of operative fixation for clavicle fractures have been increasing over recent years, but non-operative treatment remains the most common treatment. However, the reported results of case series of non-operatively and operatively treated clavicle fractures show considerable variation, making comparison difficult.

Non-operative treatment leads to unsatisfactory results in approximately 3 – 10% of cases, sometimes requiring delayed surgical intervention. Recent studies exploring predictors of poor results after non-operative treatment have shown that fracture displacement is a significant predictor of poor outcome. However, fracture comminution, angulation, shortening, smoking, age, and fracture type and location are not consistently associated with worse outcomes. This has lead to increased interest in surgical fixation for displaced fractures.

Prior to the large randomised trial by the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS), controlled trials comparing surgery to non-operative treatment provided no significant support for surgical fixation. The COTS study provides some evidence for plating displaced mid-shaft fractures, however, partly due to methodological issues, recent reviews of the topic have concluded that additional, more rigorous studies are required to confirm the findings of the COTS trial.

Intramedullary fixation is also popular, but it does not have the weight of evidence of plate fixation.