0
Commentary and Perspective   |    
Will My Clavicle Heal?Commentary on an article by I.R. Murray, BMedSci(Hons), MRCSEd, DipSportsMed, et al.: “Risk Factors for Nonunion After Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Midshaft Fractures of the Clavicle”
Andrew H. Schmidt, MD1
1 Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
View Disclosures and Other Information
  • Disclosure statement for author(s): PDF

The author did not receive payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his institution), from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. He, or his institution, has had a financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with an entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The author has not had any other relationships, or engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by authors are always provided with the online version of the article.


Copyright © 2013 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2013 Jul 03;95(13):e93 1-2. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00563
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
The management of clavicular fractures has changed substantially in the last fifteen years. In 1997, Hill et al. documented poor results and increased risk of nonunion in clavicular fractures with initial shortening of ≥20 mm1. McKee et al. confirmed this finding in a study involving more sophisticated outcome assessments including Constant and DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) scores as well as muscle strength testing2. However, the 2007 publication of the results of a randomized clinical trial conducted by the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society3 showing improved outcomes with surgical management of displaced clavicular fractures appears to represent the “pivot point,” following which clinical practice began to be more commonly surgical.
Despite the accumulating evidence of the potential for compromised functional outcome and the increased risk of nonunion in patients with a displaced clavicular fracture, the role of surgery remains uncertain. Even if the nonunion rate is as high as 20%, it remains true that four of five patients with a displaced clavicular fracture will have healing of the fracture, treatment of a nonunion is relatively straightforward, and functional outcomes remain acceptable in many patients despite malunion. For these reasons, many investigators have tried to better define surgical indications by investigating risk factors for poor outcomes. Nowak et al. reviewed 245 adult patients with a clavicular fracture and noted that lack of osseous contact and fracture comminution with a transverse fragment were strong predictors of adverse sequelae whereas fracture location and shortening alone were not4. In 2004, even before the Canadian trial was completed, a group from Edinburgh reported study data that could be used to estimate the likelihood of clavicular nonunion5. In a consecutive series of 868 patients, the nonunion rate of diaphyseal clavicular fractures was just 4.5%, and advancing age, female sex, fracture comminution, and lack of cortical apposition were independent predictors of nonunion5.
Now that operative management of displaced clavicular fractures has become more common, it is even more important to be sure that surgery is appropriately utilized. Since displaced fractures are considered the fractures that are particularly at risk for adverse sequelae, the Edinburgh group has repeated their 2004 study but instead focused their attention solely on this group of injuries. Using much more sophisticated statistical analyses, the authors find that smoking status (yes/no), comminution (yes/no), and fracture displacement in millimeters can be used to predict the risk of nonunion. By calculating the absolute risk difference among different groups of patients and thereby defining the number needed to treat (NNT), the authors are able to provide clinicians with very clear indicators of the potential benefit of surgery in subsets of patients with various well-defined characteristics.
Clinicians treating fractures of the clavicle should familiarize themselves with the findings of this paper and incorporate the authors’ predictive model into their preoperative discussions. Data such as those in the study by Murray et al. provide a strong evidence base that lends itself to a shared decision-making process by presenting risks in a manner that is more quantifiable and easily understood by patients.
Hill  JM;  McGuire  MH;  Crosby  LA. Closed treatment of displaced middle-third fractures of the clavicle gives poor results. J Bone Joint Surg Br.  1997 Jul;79(  4):537-9.[CrossRef]
 
McKee  MD;  Pedersen  EM;  Jones  C;  Stephen  DJ;  Kreder  HJ;  Schemitsch  EH;  Wild  LM;  Potter  J. Deficits following nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2006 Jan;88(  1):35-40.[CrossRef]
 
Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2007 Jan;89(  1):1-10.
 
Nowak  J;  Holgersson  M;  Larsson  S. Can we predict long-term sequelae after fractures of the clavicle based on initial findings? A prospective study with nine to ten years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.  2004 Sep-Oct;13(  5):479-86.[CrossRef]
 
Robinson  CM;  Court-Brown  CM;  McQueen  MM;  Wakefield  AE. Estimating the risk of nonunion following nonoperative treatment of a clavicular fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2004 Jul;86(  7):1359-65.
 

Submit a comment

References

Hill  JM;  McGuire  MH;  Crosby  LA. Closed treatment of displaced middle-third fractures of the clavicle gives poor results. J Bone Joint Surg Br.  1997 Jul;79(  4):537-9.[CrossRef]
 
McKee  MD;  Pedersen  EM;  Jones  C;  Stephen  DJ;  Kreder  HJ;  Schemitsch  EH;  Wild  LM;  Potter  J. Deficits following nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2006 Jan;88(  1):35-40.[CrossRef]
 
Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2007 Jan;89(  1):1-10.
 
Nowak  J;  Holgersson  M;  Larsson  S. Can we predict long-term sequelae after fractures of the clavicle based on initial findings? A prospective study with nine to ten years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.  2004 Sep-Oct;13(  5):479-86.[CrossRef]
 
Robinson  CM;  Court-Brown  CM;  McQueen  MM;  Wakefield  AE. Estimating the risk of nonunion following nonoperative treatment of a clavicular fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am.  2004 Jul;86(  7):1359-65.
 
Accreditation Statement
These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
CME Activities Associated with This Article
Submit a Comment
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe





Related Content
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
JBJS Case Connector
Topic Collections
Related Audio and Videos
PubMed Articles
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
JBJS Jobs
03/17/2014
CT - Orthopaedic Foundation
10/12/2011
NY - Modern Chiropractic Care, P.C.
04/02/2014
WY - Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County