Objectives: This meta-analysis was performed to answer the following questions: (1) What is the expected outcome of sternoclavicular (SC) dislocations left untreated? (2) What are the indications for closed reduction of SC dislocations? (3) What are the indications for open reduction of SC dislocations? and (4) Does the evidence support the need for a cardiothoracic surgeon to be available for the open reduction of a SC dislocation? Data Sources: Articles were obtained from the database EBSCOhost and supplemented by hand searching of bibliographies of included references. A search using the following terms: SC joint AND (dislocation OR injuries OR vascular injury OR cardiovascular surgeon) of the English-language literature from 1970 to 2018 on the topic of SC joint dislocations was performed. Study Selection: Studies were included if they contained clinical data on one or more of our study objectives. Articles were included if they contained participants presenting with an acute (<3 week old) SC joint dislocation who were 16 years of age or above. A total of 92 cases fit this participant criteria. Data Extraction: Studies chosen based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed for level of evidence and were then carefully reviewed for data pertaining to the current study questions. Data from individual articles were recorded in a spreadsheet program and grouped appropriately. Data Synthesis: Individual cases of acute SC joint dislocations reported in the literature were noted by the authors. The cases were organized into a spreadsheet, which allowed for the calculation of total patients treated and with what treatment option. Complications that followed treatment were also noted, allowing for a quantitative analysis of patient outcome. Conclusions: Based on the current body of literature, closed reduction should be attempted in the acute setting and open treatment performed in cases of failed closed reduction in posterior SC dislocations. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: This systematic review was performed to answer the following questions: (1) Does early weight-bearing (WB) after ankle fracture (AF) open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) affect outcomes? (2) Does early WB after AF ORIF cause an increase in complications? (3) Does early ankle motion after AF ORIF affect outcomes? and (4) Does early ankle motion after AF ORIF cause an increase in complications?Data Sources: Articles from 1970 to 2020 were found using the PubMed database. Study Selection:Level I studies of adult patients with operatively treated ankle fractures were selected. A total of 1130 cases across 20 studies fit the participant criteria.Data Extraction: Studies were reviewed for data pertaining to the current study questions. Data Synthesis:The meta-analysis used logistic regression and standardized mean difference.Results: Based on the current literature, early WB in operative ankle fractures with stable fixation showed no difference in outcomes when compared with delayed WB protocols. Early WB after ORIF did not significantly increase complications. Early ankle motion after AF ORIF did not have significant standardized mean differences between range of motion and immobilization outcomes. Early range of motion before wound healing may lead to an increase in complications [pooled odds ratio: 3.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64-5.90] but did not show an increase in infection. Conclusions:The authors recommend that early WB at 2 weeks postoperatively can be safely considered for ankle fractures when stable fixation has been obtained. Early ankle motion before wound healing is not recommended due to increased wound complications, without improvement in long-term results.