Operative Versus Non-operative Management of Mid-diaphyseal Clavicle Fractures in the Skeletally Immature Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes and complications of operative vs non-operative management of mid-diaphyseal clavicle fractures in the skeletally immature population. RECENT FINDINGS: Traditionally, skeletally immature clavicle fractures have been managed non-operatively. However, there has been an increasing trend towards operative management with a lack of evidence indicating its effectiveness. METHODS: Two reviewers searched three online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed), independently and in duplicates, for literature comparing the outcomes and complications of operative versus non-operative management in skeletally-immature patients (defined as birth to 18 years of age) with a middiaphyseal clavicle fracture. Where possible, risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were combined using a random effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies, containing 522 skeletally immature patients (with 528 mid-diaphyseal clavicle fractures) with an age range of 8 to 18 years, with 148 patients undergoing operative management and 380 patients undergoing non-operative management, were included. Across the 6 studies that reported gender (N = 444), there were 335 males and 109 females. Patients were followed up from 2 weeks to 3.7 years across five studies (N = 201 patients) that reported follow-up time. There was no significant difference in the time to achieve union (p = 0.1), the time to return to activity (p = 0.09), and the overall complication rate (p = 0.50) between the operative and the non-operative groups. There is no significant difference between operative and non-operative management of skeletally immature mid-diaphyseal clavicle fractures. Clinical equipoise exists to study this further by means of a prospective, randomized, blinded control trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis of level II, III, and IV.
