Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Operative versus non-operative treatment for clavicle fracture: a meta-analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of operative and non-operative treatment on clavicle fractures.

Method

Relevant clinical trials on the operative and non-operative treatment for clavicle fractures were retrieved through searching the databases MEDLINE, Embase, OVID and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to December 2011. The quality of the included studies was assessed by two authors. A meta-analysis was carried out on homogeneous studies. Five studies involving 633 clavicle fractures were included.

Results

The differences in nonunion [risk ratio (RR) 0.12, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.05–0.29], malunion (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.04–0.29) and neurological complications (RR 0.45, 95 % CI 0.25–0.81) were statistically significant between operative and non-operative treatment. There was no statistically significant difference in delayed union (RR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.31–1.95).

Conclusion

Operative treatment is better than non-operative treatment, but decisions should be made in accordance with specific conditions for clinical application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Robinson C (1998) Fractures of the clavicle in the adult. Epidemiology and classification. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(3):476–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Postacchini F, Gumina S, De Santis P, Albo F (2002) Epidemiology of clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(5):452–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Postacchini R, Gumina S, Farsetti P, Postacchini F (2010) Long-term results of conservative management of midshaft clavicle fracture. Int Orthop 34(5):731–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nowak J, Holgersson M, Larsson S (2004) Can we predict long-term sequelae after fractures of the clavicle based on initial findings? A prospective study with nine to ten years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13(5):479–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM, Wakefield AE (2004) Estimating the risk of nonunion following nonoperative treatment of a clavicular fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86(7):1359–1365

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Meijden OA, Gaskill TR, Millett PJ (2011) Treatment of clavicle fractures: current concepts review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(3):423–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McKee M, Seiler J, Jupiter J (1995) The application of the limited contact dynamic compression plate in the upper extremity: an analysis of 114 consecutive cases. Injury 26(10):661–666

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Poigenfürst J, Rappold G, Fischer W (1992) Plating of fresh clavicular fractures: results of 122 operations. Injury 23(4):237–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mueller M, Burger C, Florczyk A, Striepens N, Rangger C (2007) Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures in adults: 32 patients followed for 1–5 years. Acta Orthop 78(3):421–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eden L, Doht S, Frey SP, Ziegler D, Stoyhe J, Fehske K, Blunk T, Meffert RH (2012) Biomechanical comparison of the Locking Compression superior anterior clavicle plate with seven and ten hole reconstruction plates in midshaft clavicle fracture stabilisation. Int Orthop 36(12):2537–2543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rokito AS, Zuckerman JD, Shaari JM, Eisenberg DP, Cuomo F, Gallagher MA (2002) A comparison of nonoperative and operative treatment of type II distal clavicle fractures. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 61(1–2):32–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vander Have KL, Perdue AM, Caird MS, Farley FA (2010) Operative versus nonoperative treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop 30(4):307–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Virtanen KJ, Malmivaara AO, Remes VM, Paavola MP (2012) Operative and nonoperative treatment of clavicle fractures in adults. Acta Orthop 83(1):65–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ (2008) Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ Publishing Group, London, pp 285–312

  15. Böhme J, Bonk A, Bacher G, Wilharm A, Hoffmann R, Josten C (2011) Current treatment concepts for mid-shaft fractures of the clavicle-results of a prospective multicentre study. Z Orthop Unfall 149(1):68–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (2007) Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jubel A, Andermahr J, Prokop A, Lee J, Schiffer G, Rehm K (2005) Treatment of mid-clavicular fractures in adults. Early results after rucksack bandage or elastic stable intramedullary nailing. Unfallchirurg 108(9):707–714

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Judd DB, Pallis MP, Smith E, Bottoni CR (2009) Acute operative stabilization versus nonoperative management of clavicle fractures. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38(7):341–345

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kulshrestha V, Roy T, Audige L (2011) Operative versus nonoperative management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a prospective cohort study. J Orthop Trauma 25(1):31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Smekal V, Irenberger A, Struve P, Wambacher M, Krappinger D, Kralinger FS (2009) Elastic stable intramedullary nailing versus nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures-a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. J Orthop Trauma 23(2):106–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith C, Rudd J, Crosby L (2001) Results of operative versus non-operative treatment for 100 % displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a prospective randomized trial. In: Proceedings from the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

  22. Virtanen KJ, Paavola MP, Remes VM, Pajarinen J, Savolainen V, Bjorkenheim, JM (2010) Nonoperative versus operative treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures: a randomized controlled trial. The 75th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 9–12: 65–73

  23. Zlowodzki M, Zelle BA, Cole PA, Jeray K, McKee MD (2005) Treatment of acute midshaft clavicle fractures: systematic review of 2144 fractures: on behalf of the Evidence-Based Orthopaedic Trauma Working Group. J Orthop Trauma 19(7):504–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lenza M, Belloti JC, Andriolo RB, Gomes Dos Santos JB, Faloppa F (2009) Conservative interventions for treating middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD007121

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81200964 and No. 31171069); Military Twelfth Five Key Projects (No.BWS11J038); Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Trauma, Burns and Combined Injuries (No.SKLKF201113)

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department 8, Research Institute of Surgery, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400042, People’s Republic of China

    Guo-dong Liu

  2. Department of Orthopedics, Cixi People’s Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Cixi, 315300, People’s Republic of China

    Song-lin Tong

  3. Department of Anesthesiology, General Hospital of Chengdu Military Command, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610083, People’s Republic of China

    Shan Ou & Le-shun Zhou

  4. Traumatic Center, Research Institute of Surgery, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400042, People’s Republic of China

    Jun Fei

  5. Department II of Orthopedics, Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400014, People’s Republic of China

    Guo-xin Nan

  6. Department of Neurosurgery, General Hospital of Chengdu Military Command, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610083, People’s Republic of China

    Jian-wen Gu

Authors
  1. Guo-dong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Song-lin Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shan Ou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Le-shun Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jun Fei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guo-xin Nan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jian-wen Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shan Ou or Jian-wen Gu.

Additional information

Guo-dong Liu and Song-lin Tong contributed equally to the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, Gd., Tong, Sl., Ou, S. et al. Operative versus non-operative treatment for clavicle fracture: a meta-analysis. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 37, 1495–1500 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1871-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1871-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation