Kang Laurant X, Faulkner Harrison J, Howard William H, Low Adrian K
Department of Orthopaedics, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia.
JSES Int. 2022 Oct 15;7(1):79-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2022.09.010. eCollection 2023 Jan.
Fractures of the medial clavicle are uncommon. There is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment of displaced medial clavicle fractures.
A systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were queried using the terms and to identify all studies reporting on outcomes following either nonoperative or operative treatment of displaced medial clavicle fractures. Data extracted included patient demographics, fracture classification, surgical technique, patient-reported outcomes, physical, and radiographic findings. Study quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scoring system.
The analysis included 15 studies (mean MINORS score, 10 ± 1.5) with a total of 135 patients (85% male, mean age 47 ± 10.9 years [range, 15-87 years]). Five studies (39 patients) reported outcomes following nonoperative treatment. At a mean follow-up of 27 months, there were 5 (13%) symptomatic nonunions, 2 (5%) malunions, and 2 (5%) delayed unions. Eleven studies (96 patients) reported outcomes following surgical treatment with a mean follow-up of 23 months. There were no reported nonunions. Complications included plate prominence/ irritation (30%) and additional surgery was performed for plate removal (27%), fixation failure (3%), and wound débridement (1%).
There is limited, low-quality evidence in the literature to guide treatment of displaced medial clavicle fractures. The available data suggest that surgical treatment is associated with good functional outcomes and a lower risk of nonunion and malunion, compared to nonoperative treatment but plate irritation and further surgery to remove the plate was common.
内侧锁骨骨折并不常见。对于移位性内侧锁骨骨折的最佳治疗方法尚无共识。
采用系统评价与Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行系统评价。使用相关术语在PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆中进行检索,以识别所有报道移位性内侧锁骨骨折非手术或手术治疗后结果的研究。提取的数据包括患者人口统计学资料、骨折分类、手术技术、患者报告的结果、体格检查和影像学检查结果。使用非随机研究方法学指数(MINORS)评分系统评估研究质量。
分析纳入15项研究(平均MINORS评分为10±1.5),共135例患者(85%为男性,平均年龄47±10.9岁[范围15 - 87岁])。5项研究(39例患者)报告了非手术治疗后的结果。平均随访27个月时,有5例(13%)出现症状性骨不连,2例(5%)畸形愈合,2例(5%)延迟愈合。11项研究(96例患者)报告了手术治疗后的结果,平均随访23个月。未报告骨不连情况。并发症包括钢板突出/刺激(30%),因钢板取出而进行额外手术的比例为27%,内固定失败(3%),伤口清创(1%)。
文献中关于指导移位性内侧锁骨骨折治疗的证据有限且质量较低。现有数据表明,与非手术治疗相比,手术治疗的功能预后良好,骨不连和畸形愈合风险较低,但钢板刺激和进一步手术取出钢板的情况较为常见。