Table 2.
Relation between clavicular shortening and Constant score and/or DASH score
| References | Mean shortening in mm (SD) | Mean Constant score (SD) | Mean DASH score (SD) | Correlation (r) or p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fuglesang et al. [26] | 17.1 (7.1) | 81 (69–90) (median) | 6.7 (0.8–19) (median) | |
| <15 mm: n ≈ 30 | 80 (64–88) | 7 (3–27) | p = 0.5 (constant) | |
| >15 mm: n ≈ 30 | 84 (74–90) | 7 (0–11) | p = 0.1 (DASH) | |
| Figueiredo et al. [27] | 9.2 (6.4) | N/A | 3.38 (9.21) | r = −0.017; p = 0.90 |
| <20 mm: n = 47 (81%) | 3.38 (CI 9.56) | p = 0.53 | ||
| >20 mm: n = 11 (19%) | 3.33 (CI 7.02) | |||
| Rasmussen et al. [24] | 11.6 (8.2) | 86.3 (29–100) | N/A | r = 0.14; p > 0.05 |
| <20: n = 116 (85%) | 7.2 (10.3)a | p = 0.79 | ||
| >20: n = 20 (15%) | 7.9 (10.3) | |||
| Postacchini et al. [25] | Males: 14.1 (8.9); 8.9% (5.6%)b |
Allman 1Bc: 87.1 Allman 1C: 85.6 |
N/A | |
| Females: 10.9 (7.8); 8.3% (6.0%)1 | CS ≥ 90 (n = 55): 7.7% CS ≤ 80 (n = 9): 13.2% |
p < 0.05 | ||
| McKee et al. [5] | 14.5 (8.6) | 71 (SD not given) | 24.6 (SD not given) |
r = −0.20; p = 0.44 r = 0.32; p = 0.11 |
| <20 mm: n = 19 (63%) | p = 0.06 | |||
| ≥20 mm: n = 11 (37%) | DASH > 30 points: 3/19 (16%) 7/11 (64%) |
aMean difference in Constant score between injured and uninjured shoulder
bProportional shortening: overlap of fracture fragments divided by sum of overlap and length of injured clavicle
cAllman type 1B: displaced fractures, Allman type 1C: displaced with third bone fragment