Fixation method for treatment of unstable distal clavicle fracture: systematic review and network meta-analysis
- 280 Downloads
Surgical management is recommended for unstable distal clavicle fractures. A variety of methods have been previously reported, but there is no current consensus regarding which method is most suitable. Therefore, we have conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare postoperative shoulder function and complications between different fixation methods to identify which class of fixation is best for unstable distal clavicle fractures. We searched the literature systematically using eligibility criteria of all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes of coracoclavicular fixation (tight rope, screw or endobutton), hook plating, plate and screws, tension band wiring and transacromial pinning fixation for unstable distal clavicle fractures from PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases up to February 10, 2018. Two reviewers independently extracted data. A network meta-analysis was applied to combine direct and indirect evidence and to estimate the relative effects of the treatment options. The probability of being the best treatment was estimated using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Ten comparative studies (n = 505 patients) with one RCT study (n = 42) met the inclusion criteria. Intervention included coracoclavicular fixation (n = 111 patients), hook plating (n = 300 patients), plate and screws (n = 41 patients), tension band wiring (n = 81 patients) and transacromial pinning (n = 14 patients). A network meta-analysis showed that CM scores of coracoclavicular fixation were significantly higher when compared to hook plate and tension band wiring, with pooled mean of 2.98 (95% CI 0.05–5.91) and 7.11 (95% CI 3.04–11.18). For UCLA, CC fixation and plate and screw fixation had significantly higher scores compared to hook plating fixation with a mean score 2.22 (95% CI 0.44–3.99) and 3.20 (95% CI 0.28–6.12), respectively. In terms of complications, plate and screw fixation had lower risk with RRs of 0.63 (95% CI 0.20–1.98), 0.37 (95% CI 0.19–0.72), 0.11 (95% CI 0.04–0.30) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.002–0.16) when compared to coracoclavicular fixation, hook plating, tension band wiring and transacromial pinning. The SUCRA probabilities of CC fixation were in the first rank with 96.8% for CMS, while plate and screw fixation were in the first rank with 67.7 and 93.8% for UCLA score and complications. We recommend using plate and screw and CC fixation as the first- and second-line treatment of unstable distal clavicle fractures. As the quality of studies for this meta-analysis was not high, larger and higher-quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these conclusions for informed clinical decision making.
KeywordsDistal clavicle fracture CMS UCLA Complications Systematic review Network meta-analysis
Constant Murley Score
University of California at Los Angeles
Randomized controlled trial
Unstandardized mean difference
Tension band wiring
Transacromial Knowles pinning
Surface under the cumulative ranking curves
All authors declare no funding source or sponsor involvement in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, in writing the manuscript, and in submission of the manuscript for publication.
MB was responsible for the conception and design, collection and assembly of data, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting of the manuscript, final approval of the article. SS was responsible for the conception and design, collection and assembly of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, final approval of the article. AA was responsible for the manuscript writing, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual contents and final approval of the article. ES was responsible for the manuscript writing, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual contents and final approval of the article. PR was responsible for collection and assembly of data. WK was responsible for collection and assembly of data. JK was responsible for the conception and design, collection and assembly of data, supervising analysis and interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual contents, final approval of the article and statistical expertise.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- 2.Nordqvist A, Petersson C (1994) The incidence of fractures of the clavicle. Clin Orthop Relat Res 300:127–132Google Scholar
- 29.Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, Mulrow C, Catala-Lopez F, Gotzsche PC, Dickersin K, Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162(11):777–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 31.Wells GA SB, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysesGoogle Scholar
- 33.Palmer TMPJ, Sutton AJ, Moreno SG (2008) Contour-enhanced funnel plots in meta-analysis. Stata J 8(2):242–254Google Scholar
- 36.White IR (2009) Multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J 9(1):40–56Google Scholar
- 37.White IR (2011) Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. Stata J 11(2):255–270Google Scholar
- 40.Erdle B, Izadpanah K, Jaeger M, Jensen P, Konstantinidis L, Zwingmann J, Sudkamp NP, Maier D (2017) Comparative analysis of locking plate versus hook plate osteosynthesis of Neer type IIB lateral clavicle fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(5):651–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2645-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Yan HW, Li L, Wang RC, Yang Y, Xie Y, Tang J, Shi ZY (2017) Clinical efficacies of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using suture anchor versus hook plate in the treatment of distal clavicle fracture. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103(8):1287–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.07.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Yang SW, Lin LC, Chang SJ, Kuo SM, Hwang LC (2011) Treatment of acute unstable distal clavicle fractures with single coracoclavicular suture fixation. Orthopedics 34(6):e172Google Scholar