Tag Archive | clavicle fracture

Clavicle Fracture Research: Enough Already?

Orthopaedic surgeons and their staffs are aware of the paradigm shift that has taken place in the last 10 to 15 years regarding the treatment of clavicle fractures. Interest in the outcome differences between surgical and nonsurgical treatment has grown substantially since the 2007 Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society publication in JBJS showed that, relative to nonoperative treatment, plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures resulted in improved functional outcomes and fewer malunions in active adult patients. Since that time, The Journal alone has published 14 articles related to management of clavicle fractures. In addition, the orthopaedic literature contains a number of well-conducted meta-analyses on the topic, comparing both nonoperative and surgical treatment as well as different methods of surgical fixation.

So, with all this evidence, why have we published the randomized controlled trial on this topic by King et al. in the April 3, 2019 issue of The Journal? Partly because the authors build upon our knowledge by comparing a relatively new fixation device (a flexible intramedullary locked nail) to a more standard treatment (an anatomically contoured plate). These plate and nail devices are very different from one another in terms of mechanics and surgical technique, and the flexible nail used in this study is much different than the rigid, straight nails or pins that have been used in the past.

A union rate of 100% was observed in both groups, but the authors found that the flexible nail was significantly faster in terms of operative time. (A single surgeon experienced with both devices performed all 72 surgeries.) They also found that the DASH scores between the groups were similar until the 12 month follow-up, at which point the flexible intramedullary nail group had statistically better scores. The authors concede, however, that the 12-month DASH-score difference “might not be clinically relevant.”

There is one other reason why we deemed this article important: The flexible intramedullary device used in this study is substantially more expensive than prior fixation devices that have been shown to effectively treat clavicular fractures. King et al. did not compare device costs, but whenever we study a device that adds to the total cost of care we should attempt to prove that it adds enough patient benefit to warrant the added expense. As the authors conclude, both devices evaluated in this study appear to be effective at treating displaced/shortened clavicular fractures, and there are a number of other factors that both the surgeon and patient should consider (such as surgeon skill and experience and cosmetic results) when deciding which treatment to use.

Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief

JBJS 100: Harris Hip Score, Clavicle Fractures

JBJS 100Under one name or another, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery has published quality orthopaedic content spanning three centuries. In 1919, our publication was called the Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, and the first volume of that journal was Volume 1 of what we know today as JBJS.

Thus, the 24 issues we turn out in 2018 will constitute our 100th volume. To help celebrate this milestone, throughout the year we will be spotlighting 100 of the most influential JBJS articles on OrthoBuzz, making the original full-text content openly accessible for a limited time.

Unlike the scientific rigor of Journal content, the selection of this list was not entirely scientific. About half we picked from “JBJS Classics,” which were chosen previously by current and past JBJS Editors-in-Chief and Deputy Editors. We also selected JBJS articles that have been cited more than 1,000 times in other publications, according to Google Scholar search results. Finally, we considered “activity” on the Web of Science and The Journal’s websites.

We hope you enjoy and benefit from reading these groundbreaking articles from JBJS, as we mark our 100th volume. Here are two more:

Traumatic Arthritis of the Hip after Dislocation and Acetabular Fractures—Treatment by Mold Arthroplasty: An End-Result Study Using a New Method of Result Evaluation
W H Harris: JBJS, 1969 June; 51 (4): 737
The most lasting legacy from this classic 1969 article from William Harris is the author’s proposed hip score. A “single, reliable figure” designed to be equally applicable to different hip problems and different treatments, the Harris Hip Score is still used worldwide today in routine evaluations before and after hip arthroplasty. Not surprisingly, this article remains the most frequently cited paper in the hip arthroplasty literature.

Nonoperative Treatment Compared with Plate Fixation of Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures
Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society: JBJS, 2007 January; 89 (1): 1
Amid the ongoing debate about whether to operate on which type of clavicle fractures, this multicenter, randomized clinical trial stands out for its rigorous design and focus on patient-oriented outcomes. Local irritation and unsightly prominence from hardware notwithstanding, these findings support primary plate fixation of completely displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in active adult patients.

What’s New in Orthopaedic Trauma 2018

Trauma Image for OBuzzEvery month, JBJS publishes a Specialty Update—a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Click here for a collection of all OrthoBuzz Specialty Update summaries.

This month, Niloofar Dehghan, MD, co-author of the July 5, 2018 Specialty Update on Orthopaedic Trauma, selected the five most clinically compelling findings from among the 32 studies summarized in the Specialty Update.

Clavicle Fractures
–Findings from a multicenter randomized trial comparing open reduction/internal fixation with nonoperative treatment for acute, displaced, distal-third clavicle fractures1 included the following:

  • No between-group differences in DASH and Constant scores at 1 year post-injury
  • Higher rates of nonunion and malunion in the nonoperative group
  • Similar rates of secondary surgical procedures in the two groups

Despite no significant differences in functional outcomes between the two groups, primary fixation of these fractures reduced the risk of nonunion and malunion and decreased the magnitude of secondary procedures.

Humerus Fractures
–A retrospective cohort study of 84 patients with nonoperatively treated humerus shaft fractures2 showed fracture union in 87% of the cohort at a mean of 18 weeks. However, researchers found that if physical examination at 6 weeks after injury revealed motion at the fracture site, progression to fracture union was unlikely. They concluded that results from clinical examination of fracture motion at 6 weeks could help patients and physicians with shared decision-making regarding the appropriateness of transitioning to surgical fixation

Syndesmotic Ankle Injuries
–A randomized controlled trial compared outcomes between a suture button and 1 quadricortical syndesmotic screw in patients undergoing syndesmosis fixation. After 2 years, patients in the suture button group had higher AOFAS ankle scores, higher Olerud-Molander ankle scores, and a lower rate of tibiofibular widening of ≥2 mm than the syndesmotic screw group. Findings also favored the suture button group in terms of symptomatic recurrent syndesmotic diastasis.

–A similar randomized trial compared suture button fixation with screw fixation using two 3.5-mm cortical screws.3 There were no between-group differences in functional outcomes, but the rates of malreduction and unplanned reoperations were higher in the screw group. The suture button group had greater syndesmosis diastasis and less fibular medialization.

Blood Loss Management
–In a randomized trial comparing transfusion rates among 138 patients who underwent arthroplasty for low-energy femoral neck fractures,4 researchers found no significant differences among those treated with tranexamic acid versus those treated with placebo. However, tranexamic acid reduced the amount transfused by 305 mL. There were no between-group differences in adverse events at 30 and 90 days.

References

  1. Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society, Hall J, Dehghan N, Schemitsch EH, Nauth A, Korley R, McCormack R, Guy P, Papp S, McKee MD. Operative vs nonoperative treatment of acute displaced distal clavicle fractures: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Read at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association 33rd Annual Meeting; 2017 Oct 11-14; Vancouver, Canada. Paper no. 4.
  2. Driesman AS, Fisher N, Karia R, Konda S, Egol KA. Fracture site mobility at 6 weeks after humeral shaft fracture predicts nonunion without surgery. J Orthop Trauma.2017 Dec;31(12):657-62.
  3. Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society, Sanders D, Schneider P, Tieszer C, Lawendy AR, Taylor M. Improved reduction of the tibiofibular syndesmosis with TightRope compared to screw fixation: results of a randomized controlled study. Read at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association 33rd Annual Meeting; 2017 Oct 11-14; Vancouver, Canada.
  4. Watts CD, Houdek MT, Sems SA, Cross WW, Pagnano MW. Tranexamic acid safely reduced blood loss in hemi- and total hip arthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture: a randomized clinical trial. J Orthop Trauma.2017 Jul;31(7):345-51.

Nov. 15 Webinar—Treating Clavicle Fractures

Capture_Clavicle FX for OBuzzOn November 15, 2017 at 7 PM EDTJBJS will join with JSES (Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery) to present a webinar looking at the current paradigm for treating  clavicle fractures. Co-moderated by Drs. William Mallon, editor-in-chief of JSES, and Andrew Green, deputy editor of JBJS, the webinar will focus on two recent clavicle-fracture papers:

  • Dr. Philip Ahrens will discuss his recent JBJS paper, “The Clavicle Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Operative with Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures.”
  • Dr. Brian Feeley will discuss his 2016 JSES paper, “Plate Fixation of Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Hardware-Related Complications.”

After each author presentation, expert commentary will be provided. Discussing Dr. Ahrens’ paper will be Dr. Michael McKee, recently named chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Arizona. Dr. Gus Mazzocca, chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Connecticut, will comment on Dr. Feeley’s paper. The webinar will then be open to addressing viewer-submitted questions for the authors and the commentators.

Seats are limited, so register now!

Webinar—Patient-Centered Treatment of Clavicle Fractures

pic of Nov speakers to use

Clavicle fractures are among the most common injuries treated by orthopaedists. Until 2005, no matter the amount of displacement, standard treatment was immobilization for a few weeks, followed by gradually increased activity until the fracture healed. In 2007, Dr. Mike McKee published a landmark article in JBJS that concluded that clavicle fractures with displacement greater than 100% had better outcomes if treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Since that time, numerous studies have re-examined this question, some supporting Dr. McKee’s 2007 findings, and some disputing them.

On November 15, 2017 at 7 PM EDTJBJS will join with JSES (Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery) to present a webinar looking at the current paradigm for treating  clavicle fractures. Moderated by Dr. William Mallon, editor-in-chief of JSES, the webinar will focus on two recent clavicle-fracture papers:

  • Dr. Philip Ahrens will discuss his recent JBJS paper, “The Clavicle Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Operative with Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures.”
  • Dr. Brian Feeley will discuss his 2016 JSES paper, “Plate Fixation of Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Hardware-Related Complications.”

After each author presentation, expert commentary will be provided. Discussing Dr. Ahrens’ paper will be Dr. Michael McKee, recently named chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Arizona. Dr. Gus Mazzocca, chairman of orthopaedics at the University of Connecticut, will comment on Dr. Feeley’s paper. The webinar will then be open to addressing viewer-submitted questions for the authors and the commentators.

Seats are limited, so register now!

 

More Clinical Data on the “Clavicle Question”

clavicle_fracture_for_obuzzThe last time OrthoBuzz reported on a JBJS randomized trial looking at treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures, the authors concluded that “neither treatment option [nonoperative or surgical] is clearly superior for all patients” and that “the clavicular fracture is preeminently suitable for shared treatment decision-making.”

Now, a multicenter randomized trial by Ahrens et al. published in the August 16, 2017 JBJS adds more data for that shared decision-making discussion. In this trial, 300 patients with a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture were randomized to receive either open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a plate or nonoperative management. Patients were recruited from a range of UK hospitals, and a single implant and standardized technique were used in the operative group. The rehabilitation protocol was the same for both groups.

The union rate in both groups at 3 months was low, approximately 70%. But at 9 months after the injury, the nonunion rate was <1% in the surgically treated patients, compared to 11% in the nonsurgically treated patients. The patient-reported scores (DASH and Constant-Murley) were significantly better in the operative group at 6 weeks and 3 months, but were equivalent to those in the nonoperative group at 9 months.

“Overall,” the authors conclude, “we think that surgical treatment for a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture should be offered to patients, and [these findings] can provide clear, robust data to help patients make their choices.”

What’s New in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery: Level I and II Studies

Every month, JBJS publishes a Specialty Update—a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Here is a summary of selected findings from Level I and II studies cited in the October 21, 2015 Specialty Update on shoulder and elbow surgery:

Shoulder

–A prospective evaluation of 224 subjects with asymptomatic rotator cuff tears followed annually for an average of five years found that the risk of tear enlargement and muscle degeneration was greater in full-thickness tears, and that pain and supraspinatus muscle degeneration were associated with tear enlargement.

–The authors of a randomized trial comparing physical therapy and primary surgical repair for initial management of degenerative rotator cuff tears concluded that the effects of surgery were not profound enough to justify surgical management for patients who present initially with painful degenerative cuff tears.

–A randomized trial comparing clinical outcomes in 58 patients with a rotator cuff tear and symptomatic acromioclavicular joint arthritis found no differences in function or pain scores between those who underwent cuff repair + distal clavicle resection and those who underwent cuff repair alone.1

–After two years of follow-up, no differences in functional outcomes or rate or quality of postoperative tendon healing were found in a randomized trial comparing patients who received platelet-rich plasma following surgical cuff repair and those who did not.2

–In a three-way randomized trial comparing physical therapy, acromioplasty + physical therapy, and cuff repair + acromioplasty + physical therapy for treating symptomatic, nontraumatic supraspinatus tendon tears in patients older than 55, there were no between-group differences in the mean Constant score one year after treatment.3

–A randomized trial comparing treatments for calcific tendinitis found that ultrasound-guided needling plus a subacromial corticosteroid injection resulted in better functional scores and larger decreases in calcium-deposit size than extracorporeal shock wave therapy.4

–A randomized trial of 196 patients with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability found no significant differences in WOSI and ASES scores or range of motion between groups that underwent open or arthroscopic stabilization procedures.

–A randomized study comparing the effectiveness of immobilization in abduction (15°) and external rotation (10°) versus adduction and internal rotation after primary anterior shoulder dislocation found that after two years, only 3.9% of patients in the abduction/external-rotation group had repeat instability, compared to 33.3% in the adduction/internal-rotation group.5 A separate randomized trial found no significant difference in instability recurrence after one year between a group immobilized in internal rotation (sling) and a group immobilized in adduction and external rotation (brace).6

–A randomized trial of 250 patients (mean age of 65 years) with displaced surgical neck fractures of the proximal humerus compared surgical treatment (internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty) with conservative treatment. Finding no statistically or clinically significant difference in outcomes, the authors concluded that these results do not support the recent trend toward surgical management for proximal humeral fractures.7

–A randomized trial comparing reverse shoulder arthroplasty with hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures found that after two years of follow-up, reverse arthroplasty yielded better functional scores, better active elevation, and fewer complications than hemiarthroplasty.8

–A randomized trial comparing the use of concentric and eccentric glenospheres in reverse shoulder arthroplasty revealed no differences in scapular notching rates or clinical outcomes at a minimum follow-up of two years.

–A systematic review comparing radiographic and clinical survivorship of all-polyethylene versus metal-backed glenoid components used in total shoulder arthroplasty found that all-poly glenoids had a higher rate of radiolucencies and radiographic loosening but a much lower rate of revision after a mean follow-up of 5.8 years.

–A retrospective review found that arthroscopic biopsy was much more accurate than fluoroscopically guided fluid aspiration in diagnosing periprosthetic shoulder infections caused by Propionibacterium acnes.

–In a randomized trial of 76 workers’-comp patients with a displaced midshaft clavicular fracture, those receiving surgical management had faster time to union and return to work and better Constant scores than those managed conservatively.9

–Two studies compared plate fixation with intramedullary fixation for stabilizing clavicular fractures. One that randomized 59 patients found no differences in functional outcomes or time to healing. The other, which randomized 120 patients, found no between-group differences in DASH or Constant-Murley scores, but shoulder function improved more quickly in the plate-fixation group.

–A study that compared standard arthroscopic capsular release with capsular release extending to the posterior capsule for treating frozen shoulder found no difference in postoperative clinical or range-of-motion outcomes between the two groups.10

Elbow

–A randomized trial comparing regional analgesia to local anesthetic injections in patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy found no differences in pain, oral analgesic use, or patient satisfaction within 48 hours after surgery.11

–A randomized trial comparing eccentric and concentric resistance exercises for the treatment of chronic lateral epicondylitis found that the eccentric-exercise group had faster pain regression, lower pain scores at 12 months, and greater strength increases.12

References

  1. Park YB, Koh KH, Shon MS, Park YE, Yoo JC. Arthroscopic distal clavicle resection in symptomatic acromioclavicular joint arthritis combined with rotator cuff tear: a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Apr;43(4):985-90.Epub 2015 Jan 12.
  2. Malavolta EA, Gracitelli ME, Ferreira Neto AA, Assunção JH, Bordalo-RodriguesM, de Camargo OP. Platelet-rich plasma in rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized study. Am J Sports Med. 2014 Oct;42(10):2446-54. Epub 2014 Aug 1.
  3. Kukkonen J, Joukainen A, Lehtinen J, Mattila KT, Tuominen EK, Kauko T, Aärimaa V.Treatment of non-traumatic rotator cuff tears: a randomised controlled trial with one-year clinical results. Bone Joint J. 2014 Jan;96-B(1):75-81.
  4. Kim YS, Lee HJ, Kim YV, Kong CG. Which method is more effective in treatment of calcific tendinitis in the shoulder? Prospective randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided needling and extracorporeal shock wave therapy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Nov;23(11):1640-6. Epub 2014 Sep 12.
  5. Heidari K, Asadollahi S, Vafaee R, Barfehei A, Kamalifar H, Chaboksavar ZA,Sabbaghi M. Immobilization in external rotation combined with abduction reduces the risk of recurrence after primary anterior shoulder dislocation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jun;23(6):759-66. Epub 2014 Apr 13.
  6. Whelan DB, Litchfield R, Wambolt E, Dainty KN; Joint Orthopaedic Initiative for National Trials of the Shoulder (JOINTS).External rotation immobilization for primary shoulder dislocation: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Aug;472(8):2380-6.
  7. Rangan A, Handoll H, Brealey S, Jefferson L, Keding A, Martin BC, Goodchild L,Chuang LH, Hewitt C, Torgerson D; PROFHER Trial Collaborators. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015 Mar 10;313(10):1037-47.
  8. Sebastiá-Forcada E, Cebrián-Gómez R, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gil-Guillén V. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. A blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014Oct;23(10):1419-26. Epub 2014 Jul 30
  9. Melean PA, Zuniga A, Marsalli M, Fritis NA, Cook ER, Zilleruelo M, Alvarez C.Surgical treatment of displaced middle-third clavicular fractures: a prospective, randomized trial in a working compensation population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.2015 Apr;24(4):587-92. Epub 2015 Jan 22.
  10. Kim YS, Lee HJ, Park IJ. Clinical outcomes do not support arthroscopic posterior capsular release in addition to anterior release for shoulder stiffness: a randomized controlled study. Am J Sports Med. 2014 May;42(5):1143-9. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
  11. Wada T, Yamauchi M, Oki G, Sonoda T, Yamakage M, Yamashita T. Efficacy of axillary nerve block in elbow arthroscopic surgery: a randomized trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Mar;23(3):291-6. Epub 2014 Jan 15.
  12. Peterson M, Butler S, Eriksson M, Svärdsudd K.A randomized controlled trial of eccentric vs. concentric graded exercise in chronic tennis elbow (lateral elbow tendinopathy). Clin Rehabil. 2014 Sep;28(9):862-72. Epub 2014 Mar 14.

Dr. James Rickert’s Personal ‘Choosing Wisely’ List

The five-item AAOS contribution to the Choosing Wisely list of medical procedures that patients and physicians should question has been criticized from several quarters (see OrthoBuzz post “Do ‘Choosing Wisely’ Lists Protect Physician Income?”).

The latest scrutiny comes from Indiana orthopaedist James Rickert, MD, who founded the Society for Patient Centered Orthopaedic Surgery. Speaking at the recent Lown Institute Annual Conference (dubbed “The Road to RightCare”), Dr. Rickert said that among physicians who succumb to financial interests in recommending and performing procedures of dubious merit, orthopaedists are “one of the worst offenders.” He said it’s especially hard for those who own related businesses that benefit from high surgical volume (such as device distributorships or imaging centers) to set aside financial interests during clinical practice.

Here are five procedures Dr. Rickert thinks should be on the orthopaedic Choosing Wisely list:

  1. Vertebroplasty
  2. Rotator cuff repairs in asymptomatic/elderly patients
  3. Clavicle fracture plating in adolescents
  4. ACL repair in low-risk individuals
  5. Surgical removal of part of a torn meniscus

In citing the potential risks to patients who receive these procedures, Dr. Rickert admits to getting emails and other “grouchy comments” from fellow orthopaedists who don’t like his self-described “moral persuasion” campaign. What do you think of this list?

EDITOR’S CHOICE: Are We Overtreating Clavicular Fractures?

This is my first Editor’s Choice for OrthoBuzz as new Editor-in-Chief of JBJS. I am following the example of my esteemed predecessor, Vern Tolo, who recently issued an Editor’s Choice warning about our failure to improve the management of patients with fragility fractures in terms of appropriate diagnosis and treatment of underlying osteoporosis. That is a failure of under-treatment. I want to focus on a potential issue of overtreatment.

In the July 2, 2014 JBJS, Leroux et al. describe the risk factors for repeat surgery after ORIF of midshaft clavicle fractures. The study analyzed 1,350 patients treated with surgery between 2002 and 2010 in Ontario. It is important to note that this analysis includes years after 2007, when JBJS published the seminal multicenter RCT on this topic by the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS). The essence of that study was that ORIF with plate fixation results in a lower rate of nonunion and better functional outcomes predominantly in patients who have completely displaced fractures with about 2 cm of shortening or displacement.

Since that publication, we have seen an explosion in the operative treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures in North America. However, all too often the inclusion criteria derived from the seminal RCT are not referenced in individual patient decision making, and the presence of a clavicle fracture–regardless of degree of displacement–becomes an indication for surgical management.

The findings of the Leroux study should help put a hard stop to this! These researchers found a 24.6% incidence of repeat surgery in this cohort of patients. The most common reoperation was isolated implant removal (18.8%), and the incidence of major complications included nonunion (2.6%), deep infection (2.6%), pneumothoraces (1.2%), and malunion (1.1%). Risk of reoperation was increased in female patients and in those with major medical comorbidities. Limited surgeon experience increased the risk of reoperation for infection.

The orthopaedic surgery community must heed these data and act upon them. We should not misinterpret the COTS study to “encourage” a patient to opt for surgery if he or she has a midshaft clavicle fracture with less than 2 cm of shortening or displacement. The technical aspects of surgery for midshaft clavicle nonunion is not that different than that for a fresh fracture, so avoidance of nonunion must be thoughtfully discussed with the patient before recommending surgical fixation.

The bottom line that Leroux et al. provide is that surgery for a midshaft clavicle fracture is not a guaranteed success and that surgeon experience matters. And beyond clavicle fractures, let’s be sure we use our literature during shared decision making in an accurate and appropriate manner. That is a basic tenet of professionalism that we all should subscribe to.