Abstract
Introduction
The treatment of clavicle fractures remains controversial. Although most clavicle fractures can be treated successfully nonoperatively, no consensus exists for the complete range of lesions. A systematic literature review was performed to summarize and compare the results of different treatments.
Material and Methods
A Pubmed search on ‘clavicle’ and ‘fracture’ was performed and relevant papers collected. Predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria had to be met and parameters were extracted. The articles were regrouped according to fracture location: midshaft; lateral; or location not specified. Main parameters were: Edinburgh classification; treatment type; complications; pseudarthrosis; cosmetic satisfaction and pain.
Results
From 105 papers retrieved, 41 were included representing 4959 patiens with a median follow-up of 33 months. Patients lost to follow-up was 20.2%. The rate of displacement was higher in the lateral fracture group (63.5% versus 50.5% for the midshaft group and 33.5% for location not specified. Of all patients, 75.9% were treated nonoperatively. The lateral fracture group was operated on most (48.4%). Nonoperative treatment led to pseudarthrosis in 3.1% of midshaft fractures compared to 12.6% for lateral fractures. Operative treatment led to 7% and 2.7% of pseudarthrosis for the midshaft and lateral fractures respectively. Cosmetic dissatisfaction was frequent (13.6% for the nonoperatively treated fractures and 7.9% for surgically treated fractures). Surgical complications occurred frequently, especially wound infections (5.8%). Operatively treated patients had better pain scores at final follow-up.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients treated nonsurgically have suboptimal outcome at follow-up. In selected cases, especially displaced lateral fractures, surgery may be warranted.
