Abstract
Background
The number of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures treated surgically is increasing, and open reduction and intramedullary fixation is an emerging surgical treatment option. The study quality and scientific levels of published evidence in which possible complications of this treatment are presented vary greatly.
Methods
We performed systematic computer-based searches of EMBASE and PubMed/MEDLINE. Studies included for review reported complications after intramedullary fixation alone or in comparison to either treatment with plate fixation and/or nonoperative treatment. The Level of Evidence rating and Quality Assessment Tool were used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Included studies were ranked according to their levels of evidence.
Results
Six articles were eligible for inclusion and final quality assessment; 3 studies were graded the highest level of evidence. Major complications like bone-healing problems and deep infections requiring implant removal were reported at a rate no higher than 7%. Reported rates for minor complications, such as wound infection and implant irritation that could be resolved without further surgery, were as high as 31%.
Conclusion
The noted rates for major complications requiring additional surgery were low, but implant-related problems that require additional surgery might present with high prevalence. Owing to routine implant removal, treatment with intramedullary fixation often requires an additional surgical procedure.
Abstract
Contexte
Le nombre de fractures déplacées de la diaphyse claviculaire traitées chirurgicalement est en hausse et la réduction ouverte avec fixation intramédullaire est une option chirurgicale émergente. La qualité des études et le niveau scientifique des preuves publiées concernant les complications possibles de ce traitement varient beaucoup.
Méthodes
Nous avons procédé à une interrogation systématique des bases de données informatiques EMBASE et PubMed/MEDLINE. Les études retenues pour examen faisaient état de complications après le recours à la fixation intramédullaire seule ou comparée à un traitement par plaque et vis et(ou) un traitement non chirurgical. Nous avons utilisé le classement par niveaux de preuve ou un outil d’évaluation qualitative pour mesurer la qualité méthodologique des études. Les études retenues ont été classées selon leur niveau de preuve.
Résultats
Nous avons retenu 6 articles pour inclusion et évaluation finale de leur qualité; 3 des études présentaient le niveau de preuve le plus élevé. Les complications majeures, notamment des problèmes de cicatrisation de l’os et d’infection profonde nécessitant le retrait de l’implant, ont été signalés selon un taux n’excédant pas 7 %. Les taux de complications mineures rapportées, telles qu’infection de plaie et irritation due à l’implant, qui ont pu rentrer dans l’ordre sans autre chirurgie, se sont élevés à 31 %.
Conclusion
Les taux signalés de complications majeures ayant nécessité une autre chirurgie ont été faibles, mais les problèmes relatifs aux implants ayant nécessité une autre chirurgie pourraient être plus prévalents. Compte tenu du retrait habituel des implants, le traitement par fixation intramédullaire requiert souvent une autre intervention chirurgicale.
Fractures of the clavicle account for 5% of all fractures, and 80% of these fractures are located in the middle third of this S-shaped bone.1–4 The incidence of surgical treatment for completely displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (DMCF) is rising owing to poor results reported after nonoperative treatment for this specific subset of patients in recent years.5–10
Intramedullary fixation has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional open reduction and internal plate fixation.11 Advantages of this minimally invasive treatment option include maintaining the fracture hematoma and keeping the periosteum intact, which positively influences bone formation and improves cosmetics owing to the small incisions used.11,12 Different techniques and examples of intramedullary fixation devices have been reported and include the Hagie,9 Knowles13 and Rockwood14 pins and titanium elastic nails (TEN).15
A spectrum of possible postoperative complications, including pin migration, implant failure, deep and superficial infections, refractures and mal- or nonunions has been reported.11,16 In the current literature, however, the scientific level of evidence for reported complications from intramedullary fixation of DMCF and the quality of the studies reporting them varies. The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following questions:
What is the incidence of major and minor complications associated with intramedullary fixation of acute DMCF?
What interventions are available for resolving major or minor complications?
What is the value of reported complications in terms of the scientific level of evidence and the quality at which they are presented?
Methods
Search strategy
A computer-based search for relevant studies was carried out on June 1, 2011, on EMBASE and PubMed/MEDLINE online databases. We consulted the Cochrane Handbook (www.cochrane-handbook.com) for an optimal search strategy. Using the first 2 phases of this strategy in combination with a subject-specific search, a study database was obtained. To ensure inclusion of all relevant studies, reference and citation tracking were performed.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were included for quality assessment if they reported on acute, isolated, DMCF treated with intramedullary fixation. Comparative studies in which intramedullary fixation was compared with other treatment modalities were also eligible for inclusion.
Exclusion criteria were studies written in languages other than English, German, Dutch or French. Also, case reports, biomechanical studies, surgical technique studies, review papers and studies involving fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Studies reporting on intramedullary fixation as a treatment for open fractures, pathological fractures, multitrauma, floating shoulders, nonunions or malunions and without a clear distinction in complication rates between these and isolated DMCF were also excluded.
Selection of studies
After completion of the initial search strategy, 2 researchers (F.-J.G.W., O.A.J.v.d.M.) screened the titles and abstracts of potential studies against the inclusion criteria. Studies were then thoroughly read to assess them for final eligibility. Disagreement between the reviewers was resolved by discussion with another independent reviewer (R.M.H.).
Quality assessment
Quality assessment was performed by 2 researchers (F.-J.G.W., O.A.J.v.d.M.) on the final study selection without masking the source or authorship of trial reports. Studies were first labelled according to their level of evidence (Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine, www.cebm.net). The level of evidence rating is divided into 4 levels: level I indicates high-evidence studies, level II moderate, level III low and level IV very low-evidence studies.
To further interpret methodological study quality, we used the modified version of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group’s former quality assessment tool (QAT, www.cochrane-handbook.com). The QAT is a tool with 11 items (7 on internal validity and 4 on external validity) that can be used to score a study on methodological qualities. Scores can range from 0 to 24. Disagreement between the reviewers about the quality assessment was resolved by discussion with another independent reviewer (R.M.H.).
Data extraction and analysis
Studies were ranked according to their level of evidence. The study characteristics, including design, type of intramedullary fixation and follow-up time were also noted. Complications of intramedullary fixation were identified and categorized for each study. The categories included implant-related problems (medial/lateral protrusion, visible or palpable presence of the implant, migration/telescoping, displacement of intramedullary device with or without displacement of the fracture parts), infection (wound or deep), bone-healing problems (nonunion, delayed union and symptomatic malunion), mechanical failure (angulation or breaking of intramedullary device and corresponding irritation), refractures, nonroutine intramedullary device removal and other complications.
These categories were further subdivided into 2 groups: major and minor complications. Major complications were those requiring additional (nonroutine) surgery to either remove or revise intramedullary fixation devices as a result of the complication presented. Major complications included nonunions, symptomatic malunions, deep infections requiring implant removal, breakage of the implant, angulation of the implant with persistent symptoms requiring removal and refractures after device removal. Minor complications were those not requiring additional (nonroutine) surgery but requiring nonoperative treatment to resolve (i.e., antibiotics in case of an infection). These included wound infections, deep infections not requiring implant removal or irrigation/debridement, irritation, migration and telescoping, angulation of the implant without persistent symptoms and neurovascular problems. Irritation, migration and telescoping of the intramedullary device can often be resolved by minimally invasive shortening of the device under local anesthesia.11 Neurovascular problems tend to be self-limiting over time.11,17,18 To avoid misinterpretation, the definitions of various complications stated in the reviewed studies were used in our analysis as much as possible.
Results
The search in PubMed/MEDLINE identified 61 articles; the search in EMBASE identified 92 articles. After checking for double entries, we excluded articles based on title and abstract content; 35 articles remained for full text screening. Finally 6 articles were eligible for inclusion and final quality assessment (Fig. 1). There was no disagreement between the reviewers about the selection of the final 6 articles.
Fig. 1.
Literature search and final article selection. The search was conducted on June 1, 2011. Excluded were 1 review paper,19 4 studies in which there was no clear difference in postoperative complications made between closed and open clavicle fractures13,20–22 and 11 studies that included additional morbidity (e.g., floating shoulders, rib fractures) but in which the authors made no distinction between complications after isolated clavicle fractures and fractures with additional injury.14,23–32 In addition, 6 studies included treatment of nonunions or delayed unions and did not make a distinction with the treatment of acute fractures when describing the complications,16,33–37 2 studies were surgical technique papers,38,39 1 study reported on plate fixation,40 1 study lacked a definition for dislocation,41 1 study did not make a distinction between angulation and comminution,42 1 study included fewer than 10 patients15 and, in 1 study,11 authors reported on a previously reported patient population.43
Level of evidence
Three studies were assigned the highest level of evidence (Table 1).18,43,44 The rates of major complications like bone-healing problems and refractures were no higher than 7% in these 3 studies.18,43,44 Judd and colleagues18 reported 1 nonunion that required open reduction and plate fixation and 1 refracture after pin removal that was treated successfully with nonoperative treatment. Two studies reported a total of 3 delayed unions that all healed without further intervention.18,43
Table 1.
Level I evidence studies
| Characteristic | Smekal et al.43 | Ferran et al.44 | Judd et al.18 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design | RCT: intramedullary fixation v. nonoperative treatment | RCT: intramedullary fixation v. plate fixation | RCT: intramedullary fixation v. nonoperative treatment |
| No. of intramedullary fixations | 60 | 17 | 29 |
| Type of intramedullary fixation | Titanium endomedullary nail | Rockwood pin | Hagie pin |
| Follow-up, mean (range) mo | 24 (22–27) | 12 (5–28) | 3 (1–12) |
| Major complication rate, no. (%) | |||
| Bone-healing problem | |||
| Nonunion | 0 | 0 | 1 (3) |
| Delayed union | 2 (3) | 0 | 1 (3) |
| (Symptomatic) malunion | 0 | 0 | NA |
| Infection, deep | NA | NA | 2 (7) |
| Implant breakage/failure/irritation, mechanical failure | 2 (3) | 1 (6) | 1 (3) |
| Refracture after pin removal | 1 (2) | NA | 2 (7) |
| Minor complication rate, no. (%) | |||
| Implant breakage/failure/irritation | |||
| Irritation | 5 (5) | 1 (6) | 9 (31) |
| Migration/telescoping | 7 (12) | NA | NA |
| (Medial/lateral) protrusion | 12 (20) | NA | NA |
| Infection, wound | 1 (2) | 0 | 4 (14) |
| Routine nail removal | NA | 17 (100) | 26 (90) |
| Nonroutine nail removal | 0 | 0 | 3 (10) |
| Neurovascular problem | |||
| Brachial plexus symptoms | 0 | 2 (12) | 1 (3) |
| Regional pain syndrome | 0 | 0 | NA |
| Intramedullary fixation device shortening | 12 (20) | NA | NA |
NA = not applicable (complication not mentioned in study); RCT = randomized controlled trial.
Regarding minor complications, Judd and colleagues18 reported an implant-related irritation rate of 31% resulting in the early removal of 3 intramedullary devices owing to wound infections (10%), but the authors made no mention of further treatment for the remaining 21% of patients. Smekal and colleagues43 reported a rate of 20% for device protrusion, which was treated with shortening of the intramedullary device under local anesthesia.
The study by Witzel45 was assigned level II evidence (Table 2). There were no major or minor complications reported in that series of 35 patients. One retrospective cohort study was assigned level III evidence (Table 3).17 This study reported 1 nonunion, 2 delayed unions and 4 malunions, but the authors did not describe treatment for these major complications. In addition, a 30% radiographic migration rate of the intramedullary fixation devices was reported in this study; most patients, however, remained asymptomatic and did not require any additional treatment.17
Table 2.
Level II evidence study
| Characteristic | Witzel et al.45 |
|---|---|
| Design | RCT: intramedullary fixation v. nonoperative treatment |
| No. of intramedullary fixations | 35 |
| Type of intramedullary fixation | Prévot pin |
| Follow-up, mean (range) mo | 19 (8–26) |
| Major complication rate, no. (%) | |
| Bone-healing problem | |
| Nonunion | 0 |
| Delayed union | 0 |
| (Symptomatic) malunion | 0 |
| Infection, deep | 0 |
| Implant breakage/failure/irritation, mechanical failure | 0 |
| Refracture after pin removal | 0 |
| Minor complication rate, no. (%) | |
| Implant breakage/failure/irritation | |
| Irritation | 0 |
| Migration/telescoping | 0 |
| (Medial/lateral) protrusion | 0 |
| Infection, wound | 0 |
| Routine nail removal | NA |
| Nonroutine nail removal | NA |
| Neurovascular problem | |
| Brachial plexus symptoms | 0 |
| Regional pain syndrome | 0 |
| Intramedullary fixation device shortening | NA |
NA = not applicable (complication not mentioned in study); RCT = randomized controlled trial.
Table 3.
Level III evidence study
| Characteristic | Chen et al.17 |
|---|---|
| Design | Retrospective case–control study: intramedullary fixation v. plate fixation |
| No. of intramedullary fixations | 57 |
| Type of intramedullary fixation | Titanium elastic nail |
| Follow-up, mean mo | 24 |
| Major complication rate, no. (%) | |
| Bone-healing problem | |
| Nonunion | 1 (2) |
| Delayed union | 2 (3) |
| (Symptomatic) malunion | 4 (7) |
| Infection, deep | NA |
| Implant breakage/failure/irritation, mechanical failure | 3 (5) |
| Refracture after pin removal | 1 (2) |
| Minor complication rate, no. (%) | |
| Implant breakage/failure/irritation | |
| Irritation | 4 (7) |
| Migration/telescoping | 17 (30) |
| (Medial/lateral) protrusion | NA |
| Infection, wound | 1 (2) |
| Routine nail removal | NA |
| Nonroutine nail removal | NA |
| Neurovascular problem | |
| Brachial plexus symptoms | 1 (2) |
| Regional pain syndrome | 0 |
| Intramedullary fixation device shortening | NA |
NA = not applicable (complication not mentioned in study).
Finally, 1 retrospective case series was assigned level IV evidence (Table 4).46 In this study, Chen and colleagues46 reported a rate of 7% for malunions, which did not require additional surgery. Most of the complications encountered were minor and involved a 20% rate of irritation, which was treated by device shortening under local anesthesia.
Table 4.
Level IV evidence study
| Characteristic | Chen et al.46 |
|---|---|
| Design | Prospective case series: intramedullary fixation |
| No. of intramedullary fixations | 41 |
| Type of intramedullary fixation | Titanium elastic nail |
| Follow-up, mean mo | 24 (7–24) |
| Major complication rate, no. (%) | |
| Bone-healing problem | |
| Nonunion | NA |
| Delayed union | NA |
| (Symptomatic) malunion | 3 (7) |
| Infection, deep | 0 |
| Implant breakage/failure/irritation, mechanical failure | 0 |
| Refracture after pin removal | 0 |
| Minor complication rate, no. (%) | |
| Implant breakage/failure/irritation | |
| Irritation | 8 (20) |
| Migration/telescoping | 0 |
| (Medial/lateral) protrusion | 1 (2) |
| Infection, wound | 0 |
| Routine nail removal | 41 (100) |
| Nonroutine nail removal | 0 |
| Neurovascular problem | |
| Brachial plexus symptoms | 2 (5) |
| Regional pain syndrome | NA |
| Intramedullary fixation device shortening | NA |
NA = not applicable (complication not mentioned in study).
Finally, in 4 of the 6 included studies, all of the intramedullary devices were routinely removed according to the standard treatment guidelines in the authors’ practices.17,18,44,45
Quality assessment
The randomized controlled trials by Smekal and colleagues43 and Ferran and colleagues44 both scored 18 out of the maximum 24 points on the quality assessment tool (Table 5).
Table 5.
Quality assessment tool
| Measure | Smekal et al.43 | Ferran et al.44 | Witzel et al.45 | Judd et al.18 | Chen et al.17 | Chen et al.46 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation concealment | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Intention-to-treat analysis | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Assessor blinding | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Comparable baseline characteristics | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Participant blinding | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Treatment–provider blinding | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Care program comparability | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Defined inclusion and exclusion criteria | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Well-defined interventions | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Well-defined outcome measure | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Clinically useful diagnostic tests | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Adequate duration of follow-up | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Score | 18 | 18 | 16 | 16 | 12 | 11 |
Discussion
Our systematic review aimed at answering several questions regarding complications after intramedullary fixation of DMCF. What is the incidence of major and minor complications? What interventions are available for resolving major or minor complications? And, finally, what is the value of reported complications in terms of the scientific level of evidence and the quality at which they are presented?
Reported rates for major complications like bone-healing problems and deep infections requiring implant removal were no higher than 7%.17,18,43–46 In addition, only 4 refractures after pin removal were reported in a total of 3 studies.17,18,43 Therefore, overall, the rate of major complications requiring additional surgical treatment was low. Most complications were implant failures, breakages, irritations or implant migrations. Reported rates of minor complications were as high as 31%.
Major complications require an additional surgery (e.g., corrective osteotomy). Minor complications are resolved with antibiotics for wound infections or shortening of the intramedullary device under local anesthesia. Treatments for minor complications are non- or minimally invasive and therefore easy to resolve. Irritation is one of the main effects of migration, telescoping or protrusion. Three interventions seem to resolve most of these irritation-related complications: shortening of the intramedullary device, removal of the device or revision osteosynthesis. Migrating, telescoping or protruding devices may remain asymptomatic without requiring additional treatment, yet most intramedullary fixation techniques require routine surgical device removal once fracture healing has occurred.18,44–46 The vast majority of patients require additional surgical interventions, although these interventions are minor. An option for reducing medial protrusion (and thus irritation) might be the use of medial end caps. Frigg and colleagues47 reported a reduction in medial protrusion rates by using an end cap for TEN.
The level of evidence and quality assessment tools were used to assess studies on methodological quality. Only 6 studies met our inclusion criteria, 3 of which provided the highest possible level of evidence. Therefore, studies on this specific subject with high-level evidence are scarce.
The optimal surgical technique to accomplish intramedullary fixation is anecdotally harder to master than more traditional surgical fixation techniques. Reported operative outcome may be influenced by learning curves of the involved surgeons. Only 1 study included in our review mentioned the involved surgeon’s experience with intramedullary fixation.45 In addition, depending on the intramedullary device used, the degree of open fracture reduction varies. Theoretically, this may negatively affect infection rates due to increased exposure, cosmetic outcome due to an increase in incision length and fracture healing due to disruption of the periosteum and fracture hematoma. For instance, fixation with the Rockwood pin, requires open reduction,44 whereas TEN fixation reportedly allows for closed reduction in 60%–85% of cases.11,35 In addition, the type of intramedullary device may influence the rate of complications. Unfortunately, the current numbers available are too small and study designs too different to permit a thorough analysis.
Discussion of whether more complex fractures should then be treated with intramedullary fixation may arise. The included studies did not answer that question. However, other studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria indicated that intramedullary fixation might also be suitable for fixation of more complex fractures.11,24,32
In 3 of the studies included in our review, the intramedullary devices were routinely removed upon fracture healing.18,44,46 Device removal requires additional surgery with corresponding risks and complications (e.g., infection, refracture). However, it should be noted that these additional surgical procedures only require small incisions and have short durations.17,44
Limitations
The study design carries the risk of certain limitations. Only the PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were used for our search. Proceedings of annual meetings were not taken into account; therefore, valuable information might have been lost. However, usually only preliminary results are presented at (annual) meetings and may differ from the final study results.
Owing to the different study designs and characteristics, data could not be pooled and were summarized separately per study. Available studies were only included if they reported on the treatment of isolated clavicle fractures. This strict inclusion criterion was chosen to avoid the possible influence of comorbidities on reported outcomes and complications. It has to be noted that studies reporting on a combination of clavicle fractures and lower extremity or rib pathology35,36 were accordingly excluded, although the impact of the mentioned comorbidities on the outcome of the clavicle fracture treatment may not be severe.
Several different complication groups were defined for analysis of the selected studies. However, there are differences in definitions of complications among the studies (e.g., deep, superficial and wound infections may have been present). Future studies would benefit from improvements in defining complications when determining outcome parameters. Furthermore, our review focused solely on the spectrum of complications of intramedullary fixation; therefore, no comparisons with complications after open reduction and internal plate fixation or nonoperative treatment were made.
Finally, the applicability of the quality assessment tools used should be addressed. With regards to the levels of evidence, a “high” level of evidence referred to the manner in which different treatment options were compared, but not necessarily to the way in which data were collected. In general, prospectively collected data are more reliable than retrospective data. However, when drawing conclusions on the incidence and consequences of adverse events of a single therapeutic intervention, data can be extracted from both case series and comparative studies. It is uncertain that the level of evidence of data from comparative studies is greater than that of data from prospective case series. Therefore, the quality assessment tool was added and used to strengthen the quality assessment of different studies included in our review.
Conclusion
Reported rates of major complications requiring additional surgery (e.g., corrective osteotomy) after intramedullary fixation were low, but implant-related problems that also required additional surgery might present with high prevalence. Owing to (routine) implant removal, treatment with intramedullary fixation often requires an additional surgical procedure.
Footnotes
Contributors: F.-J.G. Wijdicks, P.J. Millett and O.A.J. Van der Meijden designed the study. F.-J.G. Wijdicks and O.A.J. Van der Meijden acquired the data. F.-J.G. Wijdicks, R.M. Houwert, E.J.J.M. Verleisdonk and O.A.J. Van der Meijden analyzed the data. F.-J.G. Wijdicks, R.M. Houwert and O.A.J. Van der Meijden wrote the article. All authors reviewed the article and approved its publication.
Competing interests: None declared for F.-J.G. Wijdicks, R.M Houwert and E.J.J.M. Verleisdonk. P.J. Millett is a consultant and receives payments from Arthrex and owns stock in Game Ready and options in VuMedi. O.A.J. van der Meijden’s research position was supported by Arthrex. This research was supported by The Steadman Philippon Research Institute, which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit institution supported financially by private donations and corporate support from the following entities: Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Arthrex, Siemens Medical Solutions, Ortho Rehab, Ossur Americas and Conmed Linvatec.
References
- 1.Neer CSII. Nonunion of the clavicle. J Am Med Assoc. 1960;172:1006–11. doi: 10.1001/jama.1960.03020100014003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rowe CR. An atlas of anatomy and treatment of midclavicular fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1968;58:29–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Nordqvist A, Petersson C. The incidence of fractures of the clavicle. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;300:127–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Postacchini F, Gumina S, De Santis P, et al. Epidemiology of clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:452–6. doi: 10.1067/mse.2002.126613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Chan KY, Jupiter JB, Leffert RD, et al. Clavicle malunion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8:287–90. doi: 10.1016/s1058-2746(99)90146-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.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. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.79b4.7529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lazarides S, Zawropoulos G. Conservative treatment of fractures at the middle third of the clavicle: the relevance of shortening and clinical outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:191–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2005.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.McKee MD, Wild LM, Schemitsch EH. Midshaft malunions of the clavicle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:790–7. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200305000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Smekal V, Oberladstaetter J, Struve P, et al. Shaft fractures of the clavicle: current concepts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:807–15. doi: 10.1007/s00402-008-0775-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zlowodzki M, Zelle BA, Cole PA, et al. Treatment of acute midshaft clavicle fractures: systematic review of 2144 fractures: on behalf of the Evidence-Based Orthopaedic Trauma Working Group. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:504–7. doi: 10.1097/01.bot.0000172287.44278.ef. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Smekal V, Irenberger A, Struve P, et al. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing versus nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures — a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:106–12. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e318190cf88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Denard PJ, Koval KJ, Cantu RV, et al. Management of midshaft clavicle fractures in adults. Am J Orthop. 2005;34:527–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lee YS, Lin CC, Huang CR, et al. Operative treatment of midclavicular fractures in 62 elderly patients: Knowles pin versus plate. Orthopedics. 2007;30:959–64. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20071101-13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mudd CD, Quigley KJ, Gross LB. Excessive complications of open intramedullary nailing of midshaft clavicle fractures with the Rock-wood clavicle pin. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3364–70. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-1867-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Mueller M, Rangger C, Striepens N, et al. Minimally invasive intramedullary nailing of midshaft clavicular fractures using titanium elastic nails. J Trauma. 2008;64:1528–34. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3180d0a8bf. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Millett PJ, Hurst JM, Horan MP, et al. Complications of clavicle fractures treated with intramedullary fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:86–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.009. Published online 2010 Nov 3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Chen YF, Wei HF, Zhang C, et al. Retrospective comparison of titanium elastic nail (TEN) and reconstruction plate repair of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21:495–501. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Judd DB, Pallis MP, Smith E, et al. Acute operative stabilization versus nonoperative management of clavicle fractures. Am J Orthop. 2009;38:341–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Caira SF, Zanetti G. The fractures of the middle third of the clavicle. Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica. 2001;52:13–8. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Chu CM, Wang SJ, Lin LC. Fixation of mid-third clavicular fractures with Knowles pins: 78 patients followed for 2–7 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002;73:134–9. doi: 10.1080/000164702753671696. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kettler M, Schieker M, Braunstein V, et al. Flexible intramedullary nailing for stabilization of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: technique and results in 87 patients. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:424–9. doi: 10.1080/17453670710014022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lee YS, Huang HL, Lo TY, et al. Surgical treatment of midclavicular fractures: a prospective comparison of Knowles pinning and plate fixation. Int Orthop. 2008;32:541–5. doi: 10.1007/s00264-007-0352-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Böhme J, Bonk A, Bacher GO, et al. [Current treatment concepts for mid-shaft fractures of the clavicle - results of a prospective multicenter study]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2011;149:68–76. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1250334. [Article in German] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Frigg A, Rillmann P, Perren T, et al. Intramedullary nailing of clavicular midshaft fractures with the titanium elastic nail: problems and complications. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:352–9. doi: 10.1177/0363546508328103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Grassi FA, Tajana MS, D’Angelo F. Management of midclavicular fractures: comparison between nonoperative treatment and open intramedullary fixation in 80 patients. J Trauma. 2001;50:1096–100. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200106000-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Jubel A, Andermahr J, Faymonville C, et al. [Reconstruction of shoulder-girdle symmetry after midclavicular fractures. Stable, elastic intramedullary pinning versus rucksack bandage]. Chirurg. 2002;73:978–81. doi: 10.1007/s00104-002-0544-z. [Article in German] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Khalil A. Intramedullary screw fixation for midshaft fractures of the clavicle. Int Orthop. 2009;33:1421–4. doi: 10.1007/s00264-009-0724-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kleweno CP, Jawa A, Wells JH, et al. Midshaft clavicular fractures: comparison of intramedullary pin and plate fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:1114–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Liu PC, Chien SH, Chen JC, et al. Minimally invasive fixation of displaced midclavicular fractures with titanium elastic nails. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:217–23. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181b8ba33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mueller M, Burger C, Florczyk A, et al. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures in adults: 32 patients followed for 1–5 years. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:421–3. doi: 10.1080/17453670710014013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Strauss EJ, Egol KA, France MA, et al. Complications of intramedullary Hagie pin fixation for acute midshaft clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16:280–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2006.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Walz M, Kolbow B, Auerbach F. [Elastic, stable intramedullary nailing in midclavicular fractures — A change in treatment strategies?]. Unfallchirurg. 2006;109:200–11. doi: 10.1007/s00113-005-1029-6. [Article in German] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Frigg A, Rillmann P, Ryf C, et al. Can complications of titanium elastic nailing with end cap for clavicular fractures be reduced? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3356–63. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-1845-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Jubel A, Andermahr J, Schiffer G, et al. [Technique of intramedullary osteosynthesis of the clavicle with elastic titanium nails]. Unfallchirurg. 2002;105:511–6. doi: 10.1007/s00113-001-0386-z. [Article in German] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Jubel A, Andermahr J, Schiffer G, et al. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures with a titanium nail. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2003;(408):279–85. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200303000-00037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Reissner L, Rillmann P, Ryf C, et al. [Treatment of clavicular mid-shaft fractures with TEN and end cap — reduced complications by careful operative technique and limited range of motion]. Sport Orthopädie Sport Traumatologie. 2010;4:247–53. [Article in German] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Siebenmann RP, Spieler U, Arquint A. [Rush pin osteosynthesis of the clavicles as an alternative to conservative treatment]. Unfallchirurgie. 1987;13:303–7. doi: 10.1007/BF02588650. [Article in German] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Keener JD, Dahners LE. Percutaneous pinning of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;4:175–81. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Rehm KE, Andermahr J, Jubel A. Intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures with an elastic titanium nail. Eur J Trauma. 2005;31:409–16. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Kulshrestha V, Roy T, Audige L. Operative versus nonoperative management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a prospective cohort study. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25:31–8. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181d8290e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Müller MC, Burger C, Florczyk A, et al. [Elastic titanium nails in minimally invasive osteosynthesis for midclavicular fractures]. Chirurg. 2007;78:349–55. doi: 10.1007/s00104-006-1284-2. [Article in German] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Zenni EJ, Jr, Krieg JK, Rosen MJ. Open reduction and internal fixation of clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:147–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Smekal V, Irenberger A, El Attal R, et al. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing is best for mid-shaft clavicular fractures without comminution: results in 60 patients. Injury. 2011;42:324–9. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.02.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Ferran NA, Hodgson P, Vannet N, et al. Locked intramedullary fixation vs. plating for displaced and shortened mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a randomized clinical trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19:783–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Witzel K. [Intramedullary osteosynthesis in fractures of the mid-third of the clavicle in sports traumatology]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2007;145:639–42. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-965616. [Article in German] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Chen YF, Zeng BF, Chen YJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of midclavicular fractures treated with titanium elastic nails. Can J Surg. 2010;6:379–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Frigg A, Rillmann P, Perren T, et al. Intramedullary nailing of clavicular midshaft fractures with the titanium elastic nail: problems and complications. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:352–9. doi: 10.1177/0363546508328103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]