A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE DESCRIBING THE TREATMENT OF CLAVICLE FRACTURES

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.