Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#212 Clavicle Fractures: To plate or not to plate, that is the question.

For patients with a displaced mid-shaft clavicle fracture, should we routinely offer surgery instead of conservative management?

High quality evidence demonstrates no significant long-term differences in patient oriented outcomes (pain, functionreturn to previous activities, or patient satisfactionwith surgery (plate) compared to conservative management. Approximately 20-38of surgery patients require a second operation for plate removal 

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

  • Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): Mostly males with closed, displacedmid-shaft clavicle fractures without neurovascular compromise. Randomized to open reduction, internal fixation (ORIF) with plate, or conservative management. High quality RCTs (below) ensured both groups had similar rehabilitation from blinded physiotherapists.  
    • Largest RCT of 302 English patients: ORIF or sling.1 Followed for nine months.  
      • Pain and functionEarly benefit (<6 weeks) with ORIF but no clinically significant differences at three or nine months. At nine months:    
        • Mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score: 2 (operative) versus 3 (sling). 
        • Mean Constant-Murley score (CMS): 92 (operative) versus 90 (sling). 
          • Minimal clinically important differences:2,3 CMS=10 and DASH=11. 
          • ‘Healthy shoulder’ scores:4,5 DASH <29 or CMS >~90 (gender, age dependent). 
      • Patient satisfaction: No difference. 
    • Most recent RCT of 117 Brazilian patients: ORIF or figure-of-8 harness.6 Outcomes at one year:  
      • Pain and function: No difference (no difference at any time point).  
      • Mean DASH scores: 3 (both groups). 
      • Time to return to work/previous activities: No difference. 
      • Patient satisfaction (shoulder appearance): No difference. 
    • RCT of 160 Dutch patients: ORIF or sling.7 Outcomes at one year: 
      • Pain and function: No difference in DASH/CMS scores (no difference at any time point). 
      • Secondary surgery: 27% ORIF versus 17% sling. 
      • Cosmetic satisfaction: No difference 
    • Other RCTs limited by: 
      • Unclear or no blinding of outcome assessors.8,9 
      • Different physiotherapy between groups.9 
      • Emphasizing radiographic (not patient oriented) outcomes.8,9 
  • Two quality systematic reviews found no difference in functional outcomes.10,11 
  • Operative management of displaced clavicle fractures has increased exponentially in the past 20 years.12,13 
  • 20-38% of Canadians who have clavicle fracture surgery will require a second surgery for hardware removal.14-16 
  • ORIF is more costly than conservative management.8 

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#359 Topical corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis - More than skin deep

What are the benefits/harms of topical corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis in adults/children?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#358: Any berry good solutions to preventing UTIs: Cranberries?

Do cranberry products prevent recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs)?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#357: Overcoming Resistance: Antipsychotics for difficult to treat depression

In patients with treatment-resistant depression, is adding an atypical antipsychotic to current therapy safe and effective?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • Savanna Boutin BSc Hon
  • Robert Korbyl MD FRCS(C)
  • Michael R Kolber MD CCFP MSc

1. Ahrens PM, Garlick NI, Barber J, et al. J Bone Jt Surg. 2017; 99(16):1345-54.

2. Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013; 22:1650-5.

3. Franchignoni F, Vercelli S, Giordano A, et al. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014; 44(1):30-9.

4. Williams N. Occupational Medicine. 2014; 64:67-8.

5. Yian EH, Ramappa AJ, Arneberg O, et al. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2005; 14(2):128-33.

6. Tamaoki MJS, Matsunaga FT, da Costa AR, et al. J Bone Jt Surg. 2017; 99(14):1159-65.

7. Woltz S, Stegeman SA, Krijnen P, et al. J Bone Jt Surg. 2017; 99(2):106-12.

8. Robinson CM, Goudie EB, Murray IR, et al. J Bone Jt Surg. 2013; 95(17):1576-84.

9. Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. J Bone Jt Surg. 2007; 89(1):1-10.

10. Woltz S, Krijnen P, Schipper IB. J Bone Jt Surg. 2017; 99(12):1051-7.

11. Lenza M, Buchbinder R, Johnston R, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (6):CD009363.

12. Huttunen TT, Launonen AP, Berg HE, et al. J Bone Jt Surg. 2016; 98:1837-42.

13. Huttunen TT, Kannus P, Lepola V, et al. Injury. 2013; 44:1899-903.

14. Ashman BD, Slobogean GP, Stone TB, et al. Injury. 2014; 45(10):1549-53.

15. Leroux T, Wasserstein D, Henry P, et al. J Bone Jt Surg. 2014; 96:1119-25.

16. Schemitsch LA, Schemitsch EH, Kuzyk P, et al. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29(12):533-7.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.