Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Aug;37(8):1495-500.
doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1871-z. Epub 2013 May 5.

Operative versus non-operative treatment for clavicle fracture: a meta-analysis

Guo-dong Liu  1 , Song-lin Tong, Shan Ou, Le-shun Zhou, Jun Fei, Guo-xin Nan, Jian-wen Gu
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Operative versus non-operative treatment for clavicle fracture: a meta-analysis

Guo-dong Liu et al. Int Orthop. 2013 Aug.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of operative and non-operative treatment on clavicle fractures.

Method: Relevant clinical trials on the operative and non-operative treatment for clavicle fractures were retrieved through searching the databases MEDLINE, Embase, OVID and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to December 2011. The quality of the included studies was assessed by two authors. A meta-analysis was carried out on homogeneous studies. Five studies involving 633 clavicle fractures were included.

Results: The differences in nonunion [risk ratio (RR) 0.12, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.29], malunion (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.04-0.29) and neurological complications (RR 0.45, 95 % CI 0.25-0.81) were statistically significant between operative and non-operative treatment. There was no statistically significant difference in delayed union (RR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.31-1.95).

Conclusion: Operative treatment is better than non-operative treatment, but decisions should be made in accordance with specific conditions for clinical application.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparison of the nonunion rate after operative and non-operative treatment for clavicle fracture
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of the malunion rate after operative and non-operative treatment for clavicle fracture
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of the delayed union rate after operative and non-operative treatment for clavicle fracture
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison of the neurological complication rate after operative and non-operative treatment for clavicle fracture
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Robinson C. Fractures of the clavicle in the adult. Epidemiology and classification. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(3):476–484. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B3.8079. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Postacchini F, Gumina S, De Santis P, Albo F. Epidemiology of clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(5):452–456. doi: 10.1067/mse.2002.126613. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Postacchini R, Gumina S, Farsetti P, Postacchini F. Long-term results of conservative management of midshaft clavicle fracture. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):731–736. doi: 10.1007/s00264-009-0850-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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;13(5):479–486. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.01.026. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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;86(7):1359–1365. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources