0
Scientific Articles   |    
Estimating the Risk of Nonunion Following Nonoperative Treatment of a Clavicular Fracture
C. Michael Robinson, BMedSci, FRCSEd(Orth)1; Charles M. Court-Brown, MD, FRCSEd(Orth)1; Margaret M. McQueen, MD, FRCSEd(Orth)1; Alison E. Wakefield, MSc, MCSP1
1 New Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh EH16 4SU, Scotland. E-mail address for C.M. Robinson: c.mike.robinson@ed.ac.uk
View Disclosures and Other Information
In support of their research or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from Scottish Orthopaedic Research Trust into Trauma (SORT-IT). None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.
Investigation performed at the Shoulder Injury Clinic, Orthopaedic Trauma Unit, Edinburgh, Scotland

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004 Jul 01;86(7):1359-1365
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: Nonunion is a rare complication of a fracture of the clavicle, but its occurrence can compromise shoulder function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of and risk factors for nonunion in a cohort of patients who were treated nonoperatively after a clavicular fracture.

Methods: Over a fifty-one-month period, we performed a prospective, observational cohort study of a consecutive series of 868 patients (638 men and 230 women with a median age of 29.5 years; interquartile range, 19.25 to 46.75 years) with a radiographically confirmed fracture of the clavicle, which was treated nonoperatively. Eight patients were excluded from the study, as they received immediate surgery. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically at six, twelve, and twenty-four weeks after the injury. There were 581 fractures in the diaphysis, 263 fractures in the lateral fifth of the clavicle, and twenty-four fractures in the medial fifth.

Results: On survivorship analysis, the overall prevalence of nonunion at twenty-four weeks after the fracture was 6.2%, with 8.3% of the medial end fractures, 4.5% of the diaphyseal fractures, and 11.5% of the lateral end fractures remaining ununited. Following a diaphyseal fracture, the risk of nonunion was significantly increased by advancing age, female gender, displacement of the fracture, and the presence of comminution (p < 0.05 for all). On multivariate analysis, all of these factors remained independently predictive of nonunion, and, in the final model, the risk of nonunion was increased by lack of cortical apposition (relative risk = 0.43; 95% confidence interval = 0.34 to 0.54), female gender (relative risk = 0.70; 95% confidence interval = 0.55 to 0.89), the presence of comminution (relative risk = 0.69; 95% confidence interval = 0.52 to 0.91), and advancing age (relative risk = 0.99; 95% confidence interval = 0.99 to 1.00). Following a lateral end fracture, the risk of nonunion was significantly increased only by advancing age and displacement of the fracture (p < 0.05 for both). On multivariate analysis, both of these factors remained independently predictive of nonunion (p < 0.05), and, in the final model, the risk of nonunion was increased by a lack of cortical apposition (relative risk = 0.38; 95% confidence interval = 0.25 to 0.57) and advancing age (relative risk = 0.98; 95% confidence interval = 0.97 to 0.99).

Conclusions: Nonunion at twenty-four weeks after a clavicular fracture is an uncommon occurrence, although the prevalence is higher than previously reported. There are subgroups of individuals who appear to be predisposed to the development of this complication, either from intrinsic factors, such as age or gender, or from the type of injury sustained. The predictive models that we developed may be used clinically to counsel patients about the risk for the development of this complication immediately after the injury.

Level of Evidence: Prognostic study, Level I-1 (prospective study). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    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




    Christopher M Robinson
    Posted on August 19, 2004
    Dr. Robinson responds:
    University of Edinburgh

    To the Editor:

    We thank Dr Brinker and his colleagues for their supportive comments about our paper and agree with the points they have raised, which were not fully illuminated in our original paper.

    However, we would take issue with their suggestion that operative treatment should now become the preferred option for "at-risk" fractures of the clavicle and that the "... literature fully supports this trend". Although it is apparent from our study and the three cited papers that there are fractures at particular risk of nonunion, the majority of fractures still unite with non-operative treatment. Operative treatment of all "at-risk" individuals is not without risk of complications and surgery may be unnecessary in some patients. It has not yet been substantiated that early surgery confers a functional benefit over non- operative treatment, although it is apparent that the results of operative treatment for those patients who develop a nonunion are, in general, excellent.

    There is a need for a randomised controlled trial to compare the functional outcome and rate of complications, in patients with fresh clavicular fractures at risk of non-union, treated either operatively or non-operatively. In the absence of such a study, we feel that it is currently inadvisable to recommend primary operative treatment for these patients, until we have more proof that it is definitely beneficial.

    Mark R. Brinker
    Posted on August 02, 2004
    Re: Estimating the Risk of Nonunion Following Nonoperative Treatment of a Clavicular Fracture
    Texas Orthopedic Hospital

    To the Editor:

    We read with great interest the article, “Estimating the Risk of Nonunion Following Nonoperative Treatment of a Clavicular Fracture” (2004;86:1359-1365). This is a large consecutive series of 868 patients seen at the Shoulder Injury Clinic, Orthopaedic Trauma Center in Edinburgh, Scotland. The authors are to be congratulated and commended on greater than 75% follow-up at 24 weeks in such a large population.

    While the authors have provided a means for the reader to estimate the probability of nonunion by age, gender, and fracture type, we believe an important take-home message has been obscured by the method of written presentation. Specifically: what should orthopaedic surgeons now tell their patients about the outcome of displaced and comminuted diaphyseal fractures?

    The classic teaching about clavicle fractures has been that they all do well and that closed isolated injuries rarely, if ever, require operative stabilization. Several recent studies 1-3 have challenged this “conventional wisdom” by demonstrating a relatively high rate of nonunion in displaced diaphyseal fractures and even unsatisfactory results in some patients who heal in a non-anatomic position. Consequently, there has been a move towards more frequent operative stabilization of acute displaced mid-third clavicle fractures, and we believe the literature fully supports this trend.

     

    We are concerned that this article may lead to confusion regarding the natural history of clavicle fractures and that our learning curve on this topic may become a circle. The Abstract reports the prevalence of nonunion at 24 weeks as follows: overall prevalence 6.2%; medial end 8.3%; diaphyseal 4.5%; lateral end 11.5%. The authors conclude “nonunion at twenty-four weeks after a clavicle fracture is an uncommon occurrence, although the prevalence is higher than previously reported.” This data and the Abstract’s conclusion will undoubtedly lead many to once again believe that almost all closed clavicle fractures do well and rarely, if ever, require operative treatment. This, of course, could not be further from the truth, which is actually buried within the authors’ robust data.

     

    The authors’ Table IV provides Cox regression coefficients “to predict fracture union” and the 95% confidence intervals for relative risk of nonunion for patients with certain characteristics. As an example, the 95% confidence interval for “displaced fracture,” when inverted to represent relative risk of nonunion rather than “risk” of union, indicates that patients with a displaced fracture are 2 to 3 times more likely to have a nonunion than are patients with a nondisplaced diaphyseal fracture. Using the information in the authors’ Table IV in combination with Figure 2, we were able to compute approximate rates of nonunion at 24 weeks for displaced and displaced-comminuted diaphyseal fractures (our Table A).

     

    As can be seen, the rates of nonunion for displaced and displaced-comminuted diaphyseal fractures are relatively high, with a worse prognosis for women and older patients. The Abstract and Discussion do not clearly state that the rate of nonunion for displaced fractures in women ranges between 19% and 33%, and rises to range from 33% to 47% when there is also comminution. Clearly, operative intervention should be strongly contemplated for certain subgroups presented in our Table A.

     

    Again, we commend the authors on their excellent work, but wish they had stated some of their important findings more clearly. The optimal treatment for clavicle fractures has evolved over the last decade and more patients are receiving operative stabilization for fractures prone to nonunion. Table A provides useful summary data of this excellent series, which may be helpful to treating orthopaedic surgeons and their patients.

     

    Table A. Probability of nonunion at 24 weeks for diaphyseal clavicle fractures.

     

     

    Displaced

    Comminuted

    Displaced & Comminuted

    Not Displaced,

    Not Comminuted

    Age (yrs)

    Females

    Males

    Females

    Males

    Females

    Males

    Females

    Males

    25

    19%

    8%

    7%

    3%

    33%

    20%

    3%

    35

    20%

    11%

    8%

    4%

    35%

    21%

    4%

    45

    25%

    14%

    10%

    5%

    37%

    25%

    5%

    1%

    55

    28%

    18%

    12%

    6%

    42%

    29%

    6%

    2%

    65

    33%

    20%

    18%

    7%

    47%

    33%

    7%

    3%

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Mark R. Brinker, MD

    Director of Acute and Reconstructive Trauma

    Texas Orthopedic Hospital

     

    T. Bradley Edwards, MD

    Shoulder Service

    Texas Orthopedic Hospital

     

    Daniel P. O’Connor, PhD

    Director, Joe W. King Orthopedic Institute

     

    1.          Wick M, Muller EJ, Kollig E, Muhr G. Midshaft fractures of the clavicle with a shortening of more than 2 cm predispose to nonunion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2001;121: 207-11.

    2.          Robinson CM. Fractures of the clavicle in the adult. Epidemiology and classification. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1998;80: 476-84.

    3.          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;79: 537-9.

     

    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Displaced, comminuted diaphyseal clavicle fracture.
    The Journal of hand surgery: Issue date- 2009 Dec
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    02/04/2013
    Michigan - Wayne State University School of Medicine
    03/26/2013
    Texas - The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
    03/20/2013
    New Jersey - Wayne J. Altman, MD, PA
    04/09/2013
    PA - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center