What Is the Best Evidence for Management of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of 22 Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Background Displaced mid-third clavicle fractures are common, and their management remains unclear. Although several meta-analyses have compared specific operative techniques with nonoperative management, it is not possible to compare different operative constructs with one another using a standard meta-analysis. Conversely, a network meta-analysis allows comparisons among more than two treatment arms, using both direct and indirect comparisons between interventions across many trials. To our knowledge, no network meta-analysis has been performed to compare the multiple treatment options for displaced clavicle fractures. Questions/purposes We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) to determine from among the approaches used to treat displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: (1) the intervention with the highest chance of union at 1 year, (2) the intervention with the lowest risk of revision surgery, and (3) the intervention with the highest functional outcome scores. Secondarily, we also (4) compared the surgical subtypes in the available RCTs on the same above endpoints. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were reviewed for relevant randomized controlled trials published up to July 25, 2018. Two hundred and eighty four papers were reviewed, with 22 meeting inclusion criteria of RCTs with appropriate randomization techniques, adult population, minimum of 1 year follow-up and including at least one operative treatment arm. In total, 1002 patients were treated with a plate construct, 378 with an intramedullary device, and 585 patients were managed nonoperatively. Treatment subtypes included locked intramedullary devices (56), unlocked intramedullary devices (322), anterior plating (89), anterosuperior plating (150), superior plating (449) or plating not otherwise specified (314). We performed a network meta-analysis to compare and rank the treatments for displaced clavicle fractures. We considered the following outcomes: union achievement, revision surgery risk and functional outcomes (DASH and Constant Scores). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was considered for both Constant and DASH scores to be at 8 points, representing the average of MCID scores reported for both DASH and Constant in the evidence, respectively. Results Union achievement was lower in patients treated nonoperatively (88.9%), and higher in patients treated operatively (96.7%, relative risk [RR] 1.128 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.17]; p < 0.001), Number needed to treat (NNT) = 10). Union achievement increased with any plate construct (97.8%, RR 1.13 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.7]; p < 0.0001, NNT = 9) and with anterior or anterosuperior plates (99.3%, RR 1.14 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.8]; p < 0.0001, NNT = 8). Risk of reoperation, when considering planned removal of hardware, was similar across all treatment arms. Lastly, operative treatment outperformed nonoperative treatment with minor improvements in DASH and Constant scores, though not approaching the MCID. At the subtype level, anterosuperior plating ranked highest in DASH and Constant functional scores with mean differences reaching 10-point improvement for Constant scores (95% CI 4.4 to 2.5) and 7.6 point improvement for DASH (95% CI 5.2 to 20). Conclusions We found that surgical treatment led to a greater likelihood of union at 1 year of follow-up among adult patients with displaced mid-third clavicle fractures. In aggregate, surgical treatment did not increase functional scores by amounts that patients were likely to consider clinically important. Use of specific subtypes of plating (anterior, anterosuperior) resulted in improvements in the Constant score that were slightly above the MCID but did not reach the MCID for the DASH score, suggesting that any outcomes-score benefits favoring surgery were likely to be imperceptible or small. In light of these findings, we believe patients can be informed that surgery for this injury can increase the likelihood of union incrementally (about 10 patients would need to undergo surgery to avoid one nonunion), but they should not expect better function than they would achieve without surgery; most patients can avoid surgery altogether with little absolute risk of nonunion. Patients who opt for surgery must be told that the decision should be weighed against complications and the possibility of undergoing a second procedure for hardware removal. Patients opting not to have surgery for acute midshaft clavicle fractures can be told that nonunion occurs in slightly more than 10% of patients, and that these can be more difficult to manage than acute fractures. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.

Surgical enhancement of fracture healing – operative vs. nonoperative treatment

“…Anterior or anterosuperior plates performed best, resulting in union in 99.3% of cases and NNT of eight. No differences were detected between the treatment methods with regard to reoperation rates including hardware removal [8] .…”

Will the Strength of the Clavicle Plate be Increased by Inserting Small Screws into the Empty Holes above the Fracture Site?

“…The management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures remains challenge. According to the recent meta-analysis study [7], surgical treatment for displaced clavicle fractures led to a greater possibility of union at 1 year of follow-up. Patients who hesitate to have surgery for acute displaced midshaft clavicle fractures could have the possibility of nonunion more than 10% of patients.…”

“…Clavicle fracture is the most common trauma of the scapular girdle and occurs about 81% at the midshaft [1,2]. Non-displaced clavicle fractures are usually managed conservatively [3,4], but open reduction and plate xation is the standard treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fracture to reduce risk of shortening, nonunion, malunion and so on [5][6][7]. Actually, displacement and comminuted pattern are 48% and 19% in the midshaft clavicle fracture [8].…”

Factors Affecting Patient Decision-Making Regarding Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Treatment

“…This component of the study was included to simulate a midshaft clavicle fracture patient-physician encounter. Information covered in the text included the definition of a clavicle fracture, treatment options available, risks and benefits of different treatment options, and long-term clinical outcomes based on currently available literature [4,12,13]. The text shown to respondents reads as follows:…”