Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Functional outcomes and complications of intramedullary fixation devices for Midshaft clavicle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Paul Hoogervorst, Tess van Dam, Nico Verdonschot, Gerjon Hannink

Erschienen in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

An alternative to the current gold standard in operative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (DMCF) using plate osteosynthesis, is internal fixation by means of intramedullary fixation devices. These devices differ considerably in their specifications and characteristics and an evaluation of their clinical results is warranted. The aim of this systematic review is to generate an overview of functional outcomes and complications in the management of DMCF per available intramedullary device.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify all papers reporting functional outcomes, union rates and/or complications using an intramedullary fixation device for the management of midshaft clavicle fractures. Multiple databases and trial registries were searched from inception until February 2020. Meta-analysis was conducted based on functional outcomes and type of complication per type of intramedullary fixation device. Pooled estimates of functional outcomes scores and incidence of complications were calculated using a random effects model. Risk of bias and quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and ROBINS-I tools. The confidence in estimates were rated and described according to the recommendations of the GRADE working group.

Results

Sixty-seven studies were included in this systematic review. The majority of studies report on the use of Titanium Elastic Nails (TEN). At 12 months follow up the Titanium Elastic Nail and Sonoma CRx report an average Constant-Murley score of 94.4 (95%CI 93–95) and 94.0 (95%CI 92–95) respectively (GRADE High). The most common reported complications after intramedullary fixation are implant-related and implant-specific. For the TEN, hardware irritation and protrusion, telescoping or migration, with a reported pooled incidence 20% (95%CI 14–26) and 12% (95%CI 8–18), are most common (GRADE Moderate). For the Rockwood/Hagie Pin, hardware irritation is identified as the most common complication with 22% (95%CI 13–35) (GRADE Low). The most common complication for the Sonoma CRx was cosmetic dissatisfaction in 6% (95%CI 2–17) of cases (GRADE Very low).

Conclusion

Although most studies were of low quality, good functional results and union rates irrespective of the type of device are found. However, there are clear device-related and device-specific complications for each. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis can help guide surgeons in choosing the appropriate operative strategy, implant and informing their patient.

Level of Evidence

IV
Hinweise

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12891-020-03256-8.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
ASES
American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons
CI
Confidence interval
DASH
Disabilities of arm shoulder hand
DMCF
Displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures
FL
Florida
IN
Indiana
LoE
Level of evidence
MCID
Minimally clinical important difference
MI
Michigan
ORIF
Open reduction internal fixation
PRISMA
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
TEN
Titanium elastic nail
USA
United States of America

Background

Clavicle fractures are common fractures with an incidence reported of 59.3 per 100,000 person years [1]. Historically, these fractures were predominantly treated non-operatively. However, it has been reported that surgical treatment of displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures (DMCF) leads to better union rates, improved early functional outcomes, and increased patient satisfaction [24]. The current gold standard in operative treatment is Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) using plates and screws. An alternative to this technique is internal fixation using intramedullary fixation devices. These devices aim to reduce the DMCF in a minimally invasive manner and thereby improving cosmetic satisfaction and union rates while lowering infection rates [5]. There are multiple different intramedullary devices available. Some of these devices are made out of rigid stainless steel while others consist of flexible titanium alloys. Some are not fixated within the bone while others are fixated on either one or both sides of the midshaft clavicle fracture. Since these devices differ considerably in their specifications and characteristics the array and distribution of complications and functional outcomes may vary as well.
The aim of this systematic review is to generate an overview of functional outcomes and complications in the management of DMCF per available intramedullary devices.

Methods

Electronic databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase and Cochrane) and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.​gov, controlled-trials.​com (ISRCTN), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (CCTR), EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR) and The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR)) were searched from their inception to February 2020. Keywords used to develop our search strategy were ‘clavicle’, ‘fracture’, ‘intramedullary fixation’. The detailed search strategy is described in Additional file 1.

Inclusion criteria

All titles and abstracts were screened and study inclusion was decided on by two reviewers (PH/TvD). In case of discrepancy in study inclusion, disagreements were discussed until consensus on eligibility was reached. If disagreement persisted after discussion, consensus was met consulting GH. References of retrieved eligible articles were searched for supplementary studies. Studies meeting the following criteria were included:
  • Studies describing the functional outcomes, with use of any type of intramedullary fixation for DMCF.
  • Studies describing complications, with use of any type of intramedullary fixation for DMCF.
  • Only original studies were included.
  • Studies written in English, Dutch, and German.
  • Studies concerning skeletally mature patients.
Abstracts, theses, case reports, biomechanical studies, surgical technique papers, editorials, letters and conference proceedings were not included. Studies using Kirschner wires and screws were excluded. Studies concerning intramedullary fixation for open fractures, pathological fractures, multi-trauma patients, floating shoulders, non-unions or mal-unions were also excluded.

Data extraction

Studies in the final study selection were divided into subgroups depending on type of implant and ranked according to their study design and level of evidence (Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine) by 2 authors (PH, TvD). The level of evidence (LoE) rating is divided into 5 levels: level I indicates the highest evidence studies, level II high, level III moderate, level IV low and level V very low-evidence studies [6]. Disagreement between the reviewers concerning quality assessment was resolved by discussion.
Data from all included studies were extracted with respect to specific characteristics including title, author, year of publication, number of clavicles reported, type of fracture, intramedullary device used, length of follow-up, functional outcomes, and type and number of complications. Date were extracted and checked for accuracy by PH and TvD. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. This study was conducted and reported in accordance with the reporting guidance provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [7]. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018086518).

Risk of bias and quality assessment

The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials.
The risk of bias tool covers six domains of bias: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias. Within each domain, assessments are made for one or more items, which may cover different aspects of the domain, or different outcomes [8].
The ROBINS-I tool was used for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions [9]. This tool assesses seven domains through which bias might be introduced. The first two domains, covering confounding and selection of participants into the study, address issues before the start of the interventions. The third domain addresses classification of the interventions themselves. The other four domains address issues after the start of interventions: biases due to deviations from intended interventions, missing data, measurement of outcomes, and selection of the reported result.
Publication bias was assessed only if 10 or more studies were included in the meta-analysis using funnel plots and Egger’s (for continuous outcomes) and Peters’ test (for proportions) for funnel plot asymmetry [1012]. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of study quality when there was more than 1 high quality study available according to the ROBINS-I.
The confidence in estimates were rated and described according to the recommendations of the GRADE working group as each outcome was assessed for potential risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias [13].

Data analysis

A meta-analysis was performed whenever three or more studies per intramedullary device that reported on a functional outcome or type of complication could be included.
Despite anticipated heterogeneity, the individual study proportions were pooled. Pooled estimates with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using logit transformation (complications) or using untransformed data (functional outcome scores) within a random effects model framework. A continuity correction of 0.5 was applied if a study had an event probability of either 0 or 1. This continuity correction is used both to calculate individual study results with confidence limits and to conduct the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of combined study results was assessed by I2, and its connected Chi-square test for heterogeneity, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Restricted maximum likelihood was used to estimate the heterogeneity variance. 95% Prediction intervals were calculated to present the expected range of true effects in similar studies [14].
Statistical analyses were performed using R version 3.4.4 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with package ‘meta’.

Results

The search strategy retrieved 368 unique records. Subsequent selection procedure resulted in 75 eligible articles of which 67 studies could be included in this systematic review and 62 in the meta-analysis (Additional file 2). In total, 10 studies concerning the Rockwood (DePuy, Warsaw, IN, USA) and Hagie pin (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA) were identified and included in the analysis (two level I, [15, 16] two level III [17, 18] and six level IV [1924] studies). These devices were evaluated together since they are essentially the same; they both consist of the exact same stainless-steel pin, with a cancellous and machine thread end, and two nuts. The only difference between the two is that the Rockwood pin also has a trocar point on the machine thread end of the pin. Concerning the Titanium Elastic Nail (TEN) (Depuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA or Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) the 43 studies that were incorporated in the analysis were comprised of seven level I, [2531] eight level II, [3239] eleven level III [4050] and seventeen level IV [5, 5166] studies. Another type of fixation described was the Sonoma CRx (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) for which 6 studies (three level I, [6769] one level II, [70] one level III [71] and one level IV [72]) were identified. Less frequently described intramedullary fixation devices were the threaded titanium elastic nails (Kang Li Min Medical Devices Co. Ltd., Tianjin, China), [7375] the Knowles pin (Zimmer Biomet, Warshaw, IN, USA) [7679] and one study describing a second generation Titanium elastic nail (Puwei Medical Appliances Inc., Shanghai, China) [80]. Table 1 displays study characteristics including population description, type of intramedullary device, functional outcome scores, and type and number of complications.
Table 1
Study characteristics
 
Functional Outcomes
Complications
Author
Year
Level of Evidence
Study Design
Number of Patients
Clavicles
CMS(SD) at 12months
DASH(SD) at 12months
QuickDASH(SD) at 12months
Number of complications
Hardware irritation
Soft tissue problems
Hardware failure
Infection
Non-union
Protrusion/Telescoping/Migration
Delayedunion
Malunion
Pain
Cosmetic dissatisfaction
RockwoodPin&HagiePin
 Strauss et al.
2007
4
RCS
16
16
   
8
 
3
2
 
0
   
1
 
 Judd et al.
2009
1
RCT
29
29
   
21
9
 
1
8
1
 
1
   
 Ferran et al.
2010
1
RCT
17
17
92.1(6)
  
4
 
1
1
 
0
     
 Mudd et al.
2011
4
RCS
18
18
   
16
3
3
 
2
3
2
1
 
1
 
 Kleweno et al.
2011
3
RCS
18
18
   
5
2
1
1
1
0
     
 Millett et al.
2011
4
RCS
51
51
   
15
 
5
2
2
5
 
1
   
 Payne et al.
2011
4
RCS
68
68
   
62
30
 
3
7
2
 
1
 
15
 
 Frye et al.
2012
4
RCS
17
17
   
11
7
1
2
 
0
     
 Marlow et al.
2012
4
RCS
70
70
 
5.9a
 
31
12
4
 
8
2
   
1
 
 Wenninger et al.
2013
3
RCS
33
33
   
3
2
  
1
0
     
TEN
 Jubel et al.
2002
2
PCS
65
65
96.9(3.3)
  
8
 
2
  
1
5
    
 Jubel et al.
2002
3
RCC
20
20
97(4)
  
0
    
0
     
 Jubel et al.
2003
3
RCS
55
58
97.9(3.3)
  
9
3
2
 
0
1
2
    
 Jubel et al.
2003
2
PCS
12
12
98.3(1.5)
  
0
   
0
0
     
 Jubel et al.
2005
2
PCC
26
26
   
20
8
  
0
0
2
    
 Kettler et al.
2005
4
RCS
55
55
81(7.1)
  
31
14
2
 
0
1
6
 
2
2
 
 Walz et al.
2006
2
PCS
35
35
98.1(1.3)
  
6
5
  
0
0
1
    
 Keener et al.
2006
4
RCS
24
24
   
13
6
 
2
  
1
1
3
  
 Kettler et al.
2007
4
RCS
87
87
84(9)
6.9(7.2)
 
23
4
  
0
2
4
 
7
 
4
 Mueller et al.
2007
4
RCS
32
32
95(1.9)
5(2.3)
 
16
5
 
2
1
0
8
    
 Witzel
2007
2
RCT
35
35
   
0
          
 Hartmann et al.
2008
4
RCS
15
15
95.3(3.9)
  
4
4
  
0
0
     
 Frigg et al.
2009
4
RCS
34
34
 
1.5(3.2)
 
24
7
 
1
 
0
15
  
1
 
 Smekal et al.
2009
1
RCT
30
30
97.9(1.7)
  
10
  
2
0
0
7
1
   
 Liu et al.
2010
3
RCC
51
51
86.7(5.3)
13.5(3.9)
 
20
4
 
4
3
5
  
4
  
 Frigg et al.
2011
3
RCC
44
44
 
1.4(3.1)
 
14
5
 
1
 
1
6
    
 Chen et al.
2011
1
RCT
30
30
97(4.3)
2.74(3.6)
 
10
3
 
1
1
0
3
    
 Assobhi
2011
1
RCT
19
19
95.5(5.3)
  
4
3
 
0
0
0
    
1
 Smekal et al.
2011
1
RCT
60
60
98(3.6)
0.5(1.8)
 
19
5
 
2
1
0
7
2
   
 Kadakia et al.
2012
4
RCS
38
38
  
6.7(3.4)
11
18
  
0
0
1
    
 Wijdicks et al.
2012
4
RCS
47
47
   
60
29
 
1
4
0
26
  
2
 
 Tarng et al.
2012
3
RCC
25
25
96(2)
  
4
 
4
 
0
0
     
 Chen et al.
2012
3
RCC
57
57
95(3.2)
4(4.4)
 
32
4
 
3
1
1
17
    
 Prokop et al.
2013
4
RCS
136
136
97(3)
  
1
  
1
       
 Langenhan et al.
2014
4
RCS
37
37
96.0(5.3)
3(5)
 
4
   
1
0
3
    
 Saha et al.
2014
2
PCC
34
34
93.5(4.4)
  
13
12
  
0
0
     
 Shokouh et al.
2014
4
RCS
12
13
   
0
   
0
0
     
 Braun et al.
2014
4
RCS
40
40
86.3(8.1)
5.5(6.9)
 
19
1
2
  
0
12
    
 Narsaria et al.
2014
2
PCC
33
33
94.6(3.2)
  
4
  
1
1
1
     
 Suresha et al.
2014
4
RCS
20
20
94.6a
  
0
  
0
0
0
     
 Lu et al.
2014
4
RCS
27
27
93,6(9)
6.2(11.1)
 
17
8
 
0
0
0
9
    
 Wang et al.
2015
3
RCC
25
25
93.8(8.9)
5.5(10.5)
 
12
5
 
0
0
0
5
    
 Andrade-Silva et al.
2015
1
RCT
25
25
91.8(8.8)
7.5(12.5)
 
10
10
   
1
     
 vanderMeijden et al.
2015
1
RCT
62
62
96.3(11.8)
3.9(10.2)
 
43
33
         
 Eden et al.
2015
2
PCC
24
24
   
5
1
  
1
1
2
1
   
 Mishra et al.
2016
3
PCC
73
73
96.8(2.3)
  
15
7
  
3
0
2
3
   
 Lechler et al
2016
3
RCC
36
36
87.7(10.7)
3.9(6.6)
 
12
    
3
     
 Fuglesang et al.
2017
1
RCT
60
60
   
36
19
4
2
 
1
     
 Govindasamy et al.
2017
4
RCS
54
54
97.8(1)
  
19
15
  
3
0
1
1
   
 Eickhoff et al.
2018
3
RCC
99
99
   
39
29
1
  
2
26
    
 Eisenstein et al.
2018
4
RCS
7
7
   
4
2
1
   
1
    
 Frima et al.
2018
4
RCC
34
34
   
20
  
4
0
      
 Zhang et al.
2019
3
RCC
37
37
97.3(13.7)
  
2
  
0
1
   
0
  
SonomaCRx
 Zehir et al.
2015
1
RCT
24
24
  
7.7(2.2)
8
  
1
0
0
   
3
4
 King et al.
2015
2
PCS
47
47
90(13)
11(18)
 
3
  
2
1
0
     
 Zehir et al.
2015
4
RCS
17
17
94.3(2.8)
11.8(2.5)
 
2
  
1
1
0
     
 Calbiyik et al.
2016
1
RCT
35
35
92.9(4)
 
3.8(1.6)
5
  
2
1
0
 
1
  
1
 ZehirS et al.
2016
3
RCC
33
33
94.3(5.3)
  
4
  
1
2
0
   
2
1
 Kingetal.
2019
1
RCT
35
35
97(5)
5(6)
 
3
 
1
1
0
      
ThreadedPin
 Zenni et al.
1981
4
RCS
21
21
   
7
  
1
0
 
0
    
 Grassi et al
2001
3
RCC
40
40
82.9(8)
  
15
   
8
2
 
2
   
 Bi et al.
2015
2
PCS
45
45
96.5(9)
1.4(12.5)
 
20
 
19
1
0
0
     
KnowlesPin
 Chu et al
2002
4
RCS
78
78
92(13.8)
  
4
  
1
   
3
   
 Lee et al
2007
2
RCT
32
32
85(8.8)
  
0
          
 Lee et al.
2008
3
RCC
56
56
   
4
4
         
 Wu et al.
2013
4
RCC
337
337
   
19
    
19
     
2ndGenerationTEN
 Fu
2016
4
RCC
36
36
93.4(2.7)
2.5(1.6)
 
3
1
    
2
    
RCS retrospective case series, RCC retrospective comparative cohort, PCS prospective case series, PCC prospective comparative cohort, RCT randomized clinical trail
aNo range or SD reported

Risk of bias assessment

The results of the Cochrane risk of bias tool are summarized in Table 2 and shows high risk of bias in domains 3 and 4 assessing performing and detection bias. The results of the ROBINS-I risk of bias assessment, summarized in Table 3 shows that the overall ROBINS-I score for most studies were subject to serious or critical risk of bias.
Table 2
Cochrane risk of bias assessment of randomized trials
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12891-020-03256-8/MediaObjects/12891_2020_3256_Tab2_HTML.png
Green low risk, Red high risk, Yellow Unknown Risk
Table 3
ROBINS-I assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions
Author
Year
Domain 1: Confounding
Domain 2:
Selection of participants
Domain 3:
Classification of intervention
Domain 4:
Deviation from interventions
Domain 5:
Missing data Domain
Domain 6:
Measurement of outcomes
Domain 7:
Selection of reported results
ROBINS-I overall
Sonoma CRx
 Zehir et al.
2015
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
 King et al.
2015
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Zehir et al.
2015
3
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
 Calbiyik et al.
2016
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
 Zehir S et al.
2016
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
Rockwood Pin & Hagie Pin
 Strauss et al.
2007
4
3
3
1
2
3
3
4
 Judd et al.
2009
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
 Ferran et al.
2010
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
 Mudd et al.
2011
3
3
2
1
1
3
2
3
 Kleweno et al.
2011
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
 Millett et al.
2011
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
 Payne et al.
2011
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Frye et al.
2012
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
 Marlow et al.
2012
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Wenninger et al.
2013
3
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
TEN
 Jubel et al.
2002
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
 Jubel et al.
2002
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
 Jubel et al.
2003
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
 Jubel et al.
2003
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
 Jubel et al.
2005
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
 Kettler et al.
2005
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
4
 Walz et al.
2006
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
 Keener et al.
2006
4
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
 Kettler et al.
2007
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Mueller et al.
2007
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
 Witzel
2007
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Hartmann et al.
2008
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
 Frigg et al.
2009
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
 Smekal et al.
2009
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
 Liu et al.
2010
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
 Frigg et al.
2011
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
 Chen et al.
2011
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
 Assobhi
2011
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
 Smekal et al.
2011
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
 Kadakia et al.
2012
4
3
2
1
2
3
2
4
 Wijdicks et al.
2012
3
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
 Tarng et al.
2012
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
 Chen et al.
2012
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Prokop et al.
2013
3
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
 Langenhan et al.
2014
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
 Saha et al.
2014
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Shokouh et al.
2014
2
3
2
1
2
3
2
3
 Braun et al.
2014
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Narsaria et al.
2014
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
 Suresha et al.
2014
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Lu et al.
2014
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
 Wang et al.
2015
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
 Andrade-Silva et al.
2015
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
 van der Meijden et al.
2015
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
 Eden et al.
2015
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Mishra et al.
2016
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
 Lechler et al
2016
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Fuglesang et al.
2017
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
 Govindasamy et al.
2017
3
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
 Eickhoff et al.
2018
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
 Eisenstein et al.
2018
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Frima et al.
2018
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
 Zhang et al.
2019
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
Threaded Pin
 Zenni et al.
1981
4
4
2
1
2
3
2
4
 Grassi et al
2001
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Bi et al.
2015
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
Knowles Pin
 Chu et al
2002
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
 Lee et al
2007
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Lee et al.
2008
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
 Wu et al.
2013
3
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
1 low risk of bias, 2 moderate risk of bias, 3 serious risk of bias, 4 critical risk of bias

Studies concerning the Rockwood pin and Hagie pin

All studies identified concerning these devices described an identical surgical technique. All pins were removed after union between 6 and 20 weeks through a secondary surgical intervention. Average follow-up of the studies ranged between 6 months and 7 years. The functional outcome scores reported were heterogeneous and therefore not comparable. Only two studies reported a Constant-Murley (92.1 ± 6) [15] or DASH (5.9) [19]. Other functional outcome scores reported were the Oxford Shoulder Score (45.2 ± 2.3), [15] L’Insalata (95.5 ± 7.3), [16] and ASES (88.6 and 89) [20, 24].

Meta-analysis:

It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for functional outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed for 6 different complications. Data from 10 studies were used to evaluate nonunion followed by data from 7 studies for infection. Seven studies reported hardware irritation, soft tissue problems [15, 17, 1921, 23, 24] and hardware failure [1517, 20, 2224]. Four studies were included in a meta-analysis for persistent pain. (Fig. 1) The highest pooled incidences were found for complications hardware irritation (22, 95%CI 13–35 in 253 clavicles), soft tissue problems (9, 95%CI 6–13 in 207 clavicles) and infection (9, 95%CI 5–16 in 287 clavicles). A pooled incidence of unspecified persistent pain was reported in 6% (95%CI 2–20 in 172 clavicle) of cases. The pooled incidence of hardware failure and nonunion was 6% (95%CI 3–10 in 216 clavicles) and 3% (95%CI 1–8 in 337 clavicles) respectively.
The confidence in the estimates from the meta-analyses according to GRADE ranged between low and very low (Table 4 and Additional file 3).
Table 4
Summary of findings table including GRADE
Device
Outcome
No. of Studies
No. of Clavicles
Effect estimate (95%CI))
Quality of evidence (GRADE)
Rockwood Pin & Hagie Pin
 
Hardware Irritation
7
253
0.22 (0.13–0.35)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
 
Infection
7
287
0.09 (0.05–0.16)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
 
Soft Tissue Problems
7
207
0.09 (0.06–0.13)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
 
Pain
4
172
0.06 (0.02–0.20)
⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW
 
Hardware Failure
7
216
0.06 (0.03–0.10)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
 
Nonunion
6
191
0.00 (0.00–0.04)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
 
Scar Numbness
4
173
0.05 (0.02–0.09)
⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW
 
Delayed Union
4
166
0.02 (0.01–0.06)
⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW
TEN
 
CMS
29
1270
94.40 (93.43–95.37)
⨁⨁⨁⨁ HIGH
 
DASH
15
647
4.65 (2.61–6.68)
⨁⨁⨁⨁ HIGH
 
Hardware Irritation
30
1273
0.20 (0.14–0.26)
⨁⨁⨁⨀ MODERATE
 
Protrusion
25
1105
0.12 (0.08–0.18)
⨁⨁⨁⨀ MODERATE
 
Malunion
3
193
0.07 (0.04–0.11)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
 
Soft Tissue Problems
8
406
0.04 (0.03–0.08)
⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW
 
Pain
3
136
0.04 (0.02–0.09)
⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW
 
Nonunion
36
1436
0.03 (0.02–0.04)
⨁⨁⨁⨀ MODERATE
 
Hardware Failure
19
800
0.03 (0.02–0.05)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
 
Delayed Union
6
265
0.03 (0.02–0.06)
⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW
 
Infection
29
1084
0.02 (0.01–0.03)
⨁⨁⨁⨀ MODERATE
Sonoma CRx
 
CMS
5
167
94.03 (92.31–95.76)
⨁⨁⨁⨀ MODERATE
 
DASH
3
99
9.16 (3.94–14.37)
⨁⨁⨁⨀ MODERATE
 
Cosmetic Dissatisfaction
3
92
0.06 (0.02–0.17)
⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW
 
Hardware Failure
6
191
0.04 (0.02–0.08)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
 
Infection
6
191
0.03 (0.01–0.07)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
 
Nonunion
6
191
0.00 (0.00–0.04)
⨁⨁⨀⨀ LOW
Threaded Pin
 
Infection
3
106
0.01 (0.00–0.64)
⨁⨀⨀⨀ Very Low
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

Studies concerning the titanium elastic nail (TEN)

The first reports on using TEN in the treatment of DMCF dated from 2002 [35]. TENs with a diameter varying between 2 and 3.5 mm were used. Closed reduction rates were reported in 28 of 35 studies. The rates ranged from 15% [46] to 93% [27]. Most studies report a routine removal of the TEN in all cases mostly through a second surgical intervention but also removal under local anesthesia was described. The earliest routine nail removal was performed at 3 months [56] and the latest on average at 8.8 months [25].

Meta-analysis:

A meta-analysis was performed for functional outcomes based on 30 studies reporting the Constant-Murley Score and 15 studies reporting a DASH score. (Fig. 2) The pooled data for the Constant-Murley score and DASH score at 12 months is 94.4 (95%CI 93.4–95.4 in 1290 clavicles) and 4.6 (95%CI 2.6–6.7 in 647 clavicles), respectively (Fig. 2). The confidence in the estimates from the meta-analyses according to GRADE concerning the functional outcomes were considered high due to the consistency and precision of the data in combination with the large number of clavicles involved (Table 4 and Additional file 3). The functional outcomes of two studies were not included in the meta-analysis [28, 31]. Fuglesang et al. [28] report the Constant-Murley and DASH scores of 60 TENs only by means of a line graph and van der Meijden et al. [31] report in-text Constant-Murley scores at 1 year follow up that differ from the line graph displayed. Visual evaluation of the line graphs however seems similar to the pooled incidences from the meta-analysis.
Data from 43 studies were pooled in the meta-analysis for evaluating complications rates using the TEN. Twenty-nine studies reported on infection, 29 studies on hardware irritation, 25 studies on protrusion/telescoping/migration, 19 on hardware failure, 12 on nonunion, 8 on soft tissue problems, 5 on malunion and 3 on pain. (Fig. 3) The two most common complications reported, protrusion/telescoping/migration and hardware irritation, are implant-related. The pooled incidence was 12% (95%CI 8–18 in 1105 clavicles) and 20% (95%CI 14–26 in 1273 clavicles), respectively.
Malunion after surgical management by means of a TEN was reported in 7% (95%CI 4–11 in 193 clavicles) and hardware failure was 3% (95%CI 2–5 in 800 clavicles). Pooled infection incidence was 2% (95%CI 0–3 in 1084 clavicles) and the pooled incidence of a nonunion using a TEN was 3% (95%CI 2–4 in 1436 clavicles). The confidence in the estimates from the meta-analyses according to GRADE concerning the functional outcomes ranged from moderate to very low (Table 4 and Additional file 3).

Studies concerning the Sonoma CRx

Meta-analysis

Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. Data from 5 studies were pooled for functional outcomes using the Constant-Murley score. The pooled Constant-Murley score at 12 months was 94.0 (95%CI 92–96 in 167 clavicles). Six studies reported on nonunion, infection and hardware failure. Three studies reported cosmetic dissatisfaction. (Fig. 4) The pooled incidence for cosmetic dissatisfaction was highest at 6% (95%CI 2–17 in 92 clavicles), followed by of hardware failure (4%; 95%CI 2–8 in 191 clavicles) and infection (3%; 95%CI 1–7 in 191 clavicles). No reports of non-union using the Sonoma CRx were reported, the pooled incidence was 0% (95%CI 0–4 in 191 clavicles).
Two studies reported on persistent pain as a complication [68, 71] and 1 study mentions the occurrence of a delayed union [67].
The confidence in the estimates from the meta-analyses according to GRADE concerning the functional outcomes were considered moderate. Although the results were consistent, the data originate from very limited group of authors. The confidence in the other meta-analyses according to GRADE were low to very low (Table 4 and Additional file 3).

Studies concerning a threaded elastic nail

Meta-analysis was only possible for infection [7375] and the pooled incidence was 5% (95%CI 1–34 in 106 clavicles).
The confidence in the estimates from this meta-analysis according to GRADE was very low (Table 4 and Additional file 3: Additional file 3). Other complications described for this type of fixation were soft tissue problems, delayed union and malunion. (Table 2).

Studies concerning the Knowles pin

One study reported 4 hardware irritations in 56 patients [77] and another study reported a nonunion rate of 5.6% [79]. No meta-analysis was possible for this device type.

Study concerning a second generation TEN

One level IV study described the results of a second generation TEN in 36 patients [80]. It reported a Constant-Murley score of 93.4 (SD2.7) and 3 complications; 2 protrusions and 1 hardware irritation.

Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis including only studies with a low risk of bias showed our results to be robust. The complete results of the sensitivity analysis can be found in Additional file 4.

Publication bias

In those cases that publication bias could be assessed, its presence was unlikely based on the inspection of the funnel plots and evaluation of Egger’s or Peters’ tests. Only for the Constant Murley and DASH scores the tests for funnel plot asymmetry were significant, but publication bias seems unlikely here due to ceiling effects in both scores.

Discussion

In this study the functional outcomes and complications after surgical treatment of DMCF with an intramedullary device were systematically reviewed. Good functional results and union rates irrespective of the type of device are found in the reviewed literature. However, there are clear device-related and device-specific complications for each. The pooled Constant-Murley scores of the TEN and Sonoma CRx were 94.4 (95%CI 93–95) and 94.0 (95%CI 92–96), respectively. Since the Constant-Murley score ranges from 0 to 100 points and higher scores are better, the pooled scores can be considered good. Though the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) for both the Constant-Murley score is unknown for midshaft clavicular fractures in particular it is described that the MCID in Constant Murley scores for shoulder pathology is 10.4 points [81]. Therefore, with an SD reported well within that range our conclusion seems valid as is the confidence in the estimate according to GRADE. The pooled DASH score for the TEN was 4.6 (95%CI 2.6–6.7). The functional outcomes for the Rockwood/Hagie pin could not be analyzed because all identified papers reported different functional outcome measures. This study supports the need for uniform reporting of functional outcomes and in the case of clavicle fracture treatment the Constant-Murley and the DASH are the ones most commonly used.
The most commonly reported complications after intramedullary fixation of DMCFs are implant-related and implant-specific complications. For the TEN, hardware irritation, protrusion, telescoping and migration, are major contributors to the total complication rate. The explanation for this finding may be that the TEN re-aligns but does not fixate in both fracture elements of the DMCF. These TEN-specific complications lead to infection, soft-tissue problems, pain, early re-interventions (removal or additional cutting of the nail) and loss of reduction with subsequent secondary shortening. When using the Rockwood/Hagie Pin, pooled incidence of hardware irritation was 22% (95%CI 13–35). This may be explained by the two bulky nuts at the posterolateral aspect of the clavicle where the pin is inserted and is has been reported to be an important disadvantage of the implant [15, 19, 22]. For the Sonoma CRx no reports on hardware irritation were found since this device has no extra-cortical prominences and is fully embedded in the clavicular cortex.
With regards to the TEN, there is a pooled malunion incidence of 7% (95%CI 4–11). Reports on persistent average shortening after union range between 3.5 and 6.3 mm [27, 37, 54]. Others report on shortening after union of more > 1 cm in 2.3–50% of cases [41, 57, 60]. Since shortening of the DMCF can lead to post-traumatic symptoms, altered scapular kinematics and the occurrence of gleno-humeral joint arthritis, shortening is an important issue to prevent and could be interpreted as a disadvantage of this intramedullary fixation device.
There are no studies specifically reporting on the presence or absence of post-operative shortening after fracture fixation with the Sonoma CRx. Concerning the Rockwood pin only Mudd et al. [21] reports a secondary shortening of 4-7 mm in 22% of patients which all occurred after early pin removal due to complications.
The pooled incidence for infection was 9% (95%CI 5–16) when using the Rockwood/Hagie pin, 3% (95%CI 1–7) when using the Sonoma CRx and 2% (95%CI 0–3) with use of the TEN. The two postero-lateral nuts that can cause wound-breakdown and subsequent infection may explain the high infection rate of the Rockwood/Hagie pin.
Hardware failure was 6% (95%CI 3–10) for the Rockwood/Hagie Pin compared to 3% (95%CI 2–5) for TEN and 4% (95%CI 2–8).
Meta-analysis shows nonunion incidences to be similar between the Rockwood/Hagie pin (3%;95%CI 1–8) and to 3% (95%CI 2–4) with the use of the TEN. The pooled incidence of nonunion for the Sonoma CRx was 0% (95%CI 0–4). Although no non-unions were reported in the Sonoma CRx group the confidence this outcome according to GRADE was low due to the limited number of clavicles included and the select group of authors introducing the risk of bias.
This systematic review furthermore identified the common denominator amongst many authors that routine removal of hardware is not considered a complication. However, a case could be made that every secondary intervention including hardware removal is an additional procedure which subjects the patient to associated morbidity and costs and therefore is not desirable.
As for all systematic reviews this study is limited by the quality of evidence available. In most meta-analyses of reported complications the evidence was graded as low to very low. Furthermore, only studies written in English, German or Dutch were included in this systematic review which could be a potential limitation of this study. Complications and early re-interventions are reported in some studies, [21, 3335, 51, 54, 57] but underreporting is very likely to occur. Most studies do not clearly report causes for implant failure, measures taken with occurrence of infection or information concerning implant migration or secondary shortening. Only few specifically report on the presence or absence of certain relevant complications such as secondary shortening, neuropathy of the supraclavicular nerve, delayed union and persistent pain. This information could be interesting to fully report in future studies and is a limitation of this review. Another limitation is that not all functional outcomes and complications were reported in a similar manner leading to heterogeneity of the various studies. To account for the expected heterogeneity, a random effects model was used. In the case of functional outcome scores for TEN and Sonoma the confidence in the estimates was high and moderate, respectively. Lastly, the follow up differed between studies ranging from 3 months to 7 years. This may have resulted in differences in reporting of complications and functional outcomes. Although most complications would likely occur within the first 3 months this could lead to underreporting this could further negatively influence the confidence in the estimates reported.
In the last years multiple meta-analysis comparing the gold standard of plate fixation and intramedullary devices (irrespective of device or plate type) for the management of midshaft clavicle fractures have been published [8289]. These studies report similar [8284, 8688] or superior [85, 89] functional outcomes and union rates in the intramedullary fixation group. Furthermore, most report a higher rate of complications (such as infection, refracture rate) and increased surgical time when using plate fixation, making an evaluation of the devices described in the present study even more relevant [82, 83, 8689].
The results of this systematic review show there is still room for improvement in treating DMCF in an intramedullary fashion. For newer designs it may be interesting to take the implant-related and implant-specific complications described in this systematic review into account in order to optimize future treatment strategies.

Conclusion

Although most studies were of low quality, in general, good functional results and union rates irrespective of the type of device are found in the reviewed literature. However, there are clear device-related and device-specific complications for each. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis can help guide surgeons in choosing the appropriate operative strategy, implant and informing their patients.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12891-020-03256-8.

Acknowledgements

None.
The need for approval by the ethics committee and Consent to participate was waived by our institutional review board (CMO Arnhem-Nijmegen).
Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Huttunen TT, Launonen AP, Berg HE, Lepola V, Fellander-Tsai L, Mattila VM. Trends in the incidence of clavicle fractures and surgical repair in Sweden: 2001-2012. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:1837–42.PubMedCrossRef Huttunen TT, Launonen AP, Berg HE, Lepola V, Fellander-Tsai L, Mattila VM. Trends in the incidence of clavicle fractures and surgical repair in Sweden: 2001-2012. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:1837–42.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Kong L, Zhang Y, Shen Y. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134:1493–500.PubMedCrossRef Kong L, Zhang Y, Shen Y. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134:1493–500.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat McKee RC, Whelan DB, Schemitsch EH, McKee MD. Operative versus nonoperative care of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:675–84.PubMedCrossRef McKee RC, Whelan DB, Schemitsch EH, McKee MD. Operative versus nonoperative care of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:675–84.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Woltz S, Krijnen P, Schipper IB. Plate fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced Midshaft Clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:1051–7.PubMedCrossRef Woltz S, Krijnen P, Schipper IB. Plate fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced Midshaft Clavicular fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:1051–7.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Wijdicks FJ, Houwert M, Dijkgraaf M, de Lange D, Oosterhuis K, Clevers G, Verleisdonk EJ. Complications after plate fixation and elastic stable intramedullary nailing of dislocated midshaft clavicle fractures: a retrospective comparison. Int Orthop. 2012;36:2139–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Wijdicks FJ, Houwert M, Dijkgraaf M, de Lange D, Oosterhuis K, Clevers G, Verleisdonk EJ. Complications after plate fixation and elastic stable intramedullary nailing of dislocated midshaft clavicle fractures: a retrospective comparison. Int Orthop. 2012;36:2139–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Wijdicks FJ, Van der Meijden OA, Millett PJ, Verleisdonk EJ, Houwert RM. Systematic review of the complications of plate fixation of clavicle fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:617–25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Wijdicks FJ, Van der Meijden OA, Millett PJ, Verleisdonk EJ, Houwert RM. Systematic review of the complications of plate fixation of clavicle fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:617–25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295:676–80.PubMedCrossRef Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295:676–80.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.PubMedCrossRef Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferran NA, Hodgson P, Vannet N, Williams R, Evans RO. Locked intramedullary fixation vs plating for displaced and shortened mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a randomized clinical trial. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:783–9.CrossRef Ferran NA, Hodgson P, Vannet N, Williams R, Evans RO. Locked intramedullary fixation vs plating for displaced and shortened mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a randomized clinical trial. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:783–9.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Judd DB, Pallis MP, Smith E, Bottoni CR. Acute operative stabilization versus nonoperative management of clavicle fractures. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38:341–5. Judd DB, Pallis MP, Smith E, Bottoni CR. Acute operative stabilization versus nonoperative management of clavicle fractures. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38:341–5.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kleweno CP, Jawa A, Wells JH, O'Brien TG, Higgins LD, Harris MB, Warner JJ. Midshaft clavicular fractures: comparison of intramedullary pin and plate fixation. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:1114–7.CrossRef Kleweno CP, Jawa A, Wells JH, O'Brien TG, Higgins LD, Harris MB, Warner JJ. Midshaft clavicular fractures: comparison of intramedullary pin and plate fixation. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:1114–7.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Wenninger JJ Jr, Dannenbaum JH, Branstetter JG, Arrington ED. Comparison of complication rates of intramedullary pin fixation versus plating of midshaft clavicle fractures in an active duty military population. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2013;22:77–81.PubMedCrossRef Wenninger JJ Jr, Dannenbaum JH, Branstetter JG, Arrington ED. Comparison of complication rates of intramedullary pin fixation versus plating of midshaft clavicle fractures in an active duty military population. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2013;22:77–81.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Marlow WJ, Ralte P, Morapudi SP, Bassi R, Fischer J, Waseem M. Intramedullary fixation of diaphyseal clavicle fractures using the Rockwood clavicle pin: review of 86 cases. Open Orthop J. 2012;6:482–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Marlow WJ, Ralte P, Morapudi SP, Bassi R, Fischer J, Waseem M. Intramedullary fixation of diaphyseal clavicle fractures using the Rockwood clavicle pin: review of 86 cases. Open Orthop J. 2012;6:482–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Millett PJ, Hurst JM, Horan MP, Hawkins RJ. Complications of clavicle fractures treated with intramedullary fixation. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:86–91.CrossRef Millett PJ, Hurst JM, Horan MP, Hawkins RJ. Complications of clavicle fractures treated with intramedullary fixation. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:86–91.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Mudd CD, Quigley KJ, Gross LB. Excessive complications of open intramedullary nailing of midshaft clavicle fractures with the Rockwood clavicle pin. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3364–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Mudd CD, Quigley KJ, Gross LB. Excessive complications of open intramedullary nailing of midshaft clavicle fractures with the Rockwood clavicle pin. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3364–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Payne DE, Wray WH, Ruch DS, Zura RD, Moorman CT. Outcome of intramedullary fixation of clavicular fractures. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2011;40:E99–104. Payne DE, Wray WH, Ruch DS, Zura RD, Moorman CT. Outcome of intramedullary fixation of clavicular fractures. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2011;40:E99–104.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Strauss EJ, Egol KA, France MA, Koval KJ, Zuckerman JD. Complications of intramedullary Hagie pin fixation for acute midshaft clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2007;16:280–4.CrossRef Strauss EJ, Egol KA, France MA, Koval KJ, Zuckerman JD. Complications of intramedullary Hagie pin fixation for acute midshaft clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2007;16:280–4.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Frye BM, Rye S, McDonough EB, Bal GK. Operative treatment of adolescent clavicle fractures with an intramedullary clavicle pin. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32:334–9.PubMedCrossRef Frye BM, Rye S, McDonough EB, Bal GK. Operative treatment of adolescent clavicle fractures with an intramedullary clavicle pin. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32:334–9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Andrade-Silva FB, Kojima KE, Joeris A, Silva JS, Mattar R. Single, superiorly placed reconstruction plate compared with flexible intramedullary nailing for midshaft clavicular fractures: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:620–6.PubMedCrossRef Andrade-Silva FB, Kojima KE, Joeris A, Silva JS, Mattar R. Single, superiorly placed reconstruction plate compared with flexible intramedullary nailing for midshaft clavicular fractures: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:620–6.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Assobhi JE. Reconstruction plate versus minimal invasive retrograde titanium elastic nail fixation for displaced midclavicular fractures. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011;12:185–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Assobhi JE. Reconstruction plate versus minimal invasive retrograde titanium elastic nail fixation for displaced midclavicular fractures. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011;12:185–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen QY, Kou DQ, Cheng XJ, Zhang W, Wang W, Lin ZQ, Cheng SW, Shen Y, Ying XZ, Peng L, Lv CZ. Intramedullary nailing of clavicular midshaft fractures in adults using titanium elastic nail. Chin J Traumatol. 2011;14:269–76.PubMed Chen QY, Kou DQ, Cheng XJ, Zhang W, Wang W, Lin ZQ, Cheng SW, Shen Y, Ying XZ, Peng L, Lv CZ. Intramedullary nailing of clavicular midshaft fractures in adults using titanium elastic nail. Chin J Traumatol. 2011;14:269–76.PubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Fuglesang HFS, Flugsrud GB, Randsborg PH, Oord P, Benth J, Utvåg SE. Plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing of completely displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle. Bone Joint J. 2017;99B:1095–101.CrossRef Fuglesang HFS, Flugsrud GB, Randsborg PH, Oord P, Benth J, Utvåg SE. Plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing of completely displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle. Bone Joint J. 2017;99B:1095–101.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Smekal V, Irenberger A, Attal RE, Oberladstaetter J, Krappinger D, Kralinger F. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing is best for mid-shaft clavicular fractures without comminution: results in 60 patients. Injury. 2011;42:324–9.PubMedCrossRef Smekal V, Irenberger A, Attal RE, Oberladstaetter J, Krappinger D, Kralinger F. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing is best for mid-shaft clavicular fractures without comminution: results in 60 patients. Injury. 2011;42:324–9.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Smekal V, Irenberger A, Struve P, Wambacher M, Krappinger D, Kralinger FS. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing versus nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures-a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:106–12.PubMedCrossRef Smekal V, Irenberger A, Struve P, Wambacher M, Krappinger D, Kralinger FS. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing versus nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures-a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:106–12.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat van der Meijden OA, Houwert RM, Hulsmans M, Wijdicks FJ, Dijkgraaf MG, Meylaerts SA, Hammacher ER, Verhofstad MH, Verleisdonk EJ. Operative treatment of dislocated midshaft clavicular fractures: plate or intramedullary nail fixation? A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:613–9.PubMedCrossRef van der Meijden OA, Houwert RM, Hulsmans M, Wijdicks FJ, Dijkgraaf MG, Meylaerts SA, Hammacher ER, Verhofstad MH, Verleisdonk EJ. Operative treatment of dislocated midshaft clavicular fractures: plate or intramedullary nail fixation? A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:613–9.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Eden L, Ziegler D, Gilbert F, Fehske K, Fenwick A, Meffert RH. Significant pain reduction and improved functional outcome after surgery for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10:190.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Eden L, Ziegler D, Gilbert F, Fehske K, Fenwick A, Meffert RH. Significant pain reduction and improved functional outcome after surgery for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10:190.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Jubel A, Andermahr J, Bergmann H, Prokop A, Rehm KE. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures in athletes. Br J Sports Med. 2003;37:480–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Jubel A, Andermahr J, Bergmann H, Prokop A, Rehm KE. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures in athletes. Br J Sports Med. 2003;37:480–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Jubel A, Andermahr J, Prokop A, Lee JI, Schiffer G, Rehm KE. Treatment of midclavicular fractures in adults. Early results after rucksack bandage or elastic stable intramedullary nailing. Unfallchirurg. 2005;108:707–14.PubMedCrossRef Jubel A, Andermahr J, Prokop A, Lee JI, Schiffer G, Rehm KE. Treatment of midclavicular fractures in adults. Early results after rucksack bandage or elastic stable intramedullary nailing. Unfallchirurg. 2005;108:707–14.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Jubel A, Andermahr J, Schiffer G, Rehm KE. Technique of intramedullary osteosynthesis of the clavicle with elastic titanium nails. Unfallchirurg. 2002;105:511–6.PubMedCrossRef Jubel A, Andermahr J, Schiffer G, Rehm KE. Technique of intramedullary osteosynthesis of the clavicle with elastic titanium nails. Unfallchirurg. 2002;105:511–6.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Narsaria N, Singh AK, Arun GR, Seth RRS. Surgical fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: elastic intramedullary nailing versus precontoured plating. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;15:165–71.CrossRef Narsaria N, Singh AK, Arun GR, Seth RRS. Surgical fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: elastic intramedullary nailing versus precontoured plating. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;15:165–71.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Saha P, Datta P, Ayan S, Garg AK, Bandyopadhyay U, Kundu S. Plate versus titanium elastic nail in treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a comparative study. Indian J Orthop. 2014;48:587–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Saha P, Datta P, Ayan S, Garg AK, Bandyopadhyay U, Kundu S. Plate versus titanium elastic nail in treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a comparative study. Indian J Orthop. 2014;48:587–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Walz M, Kolbow B, Auerbach F. Elastic, stable intramedullary nailing in midclavicular fractures--a change in treatment strategies? Unfallchirurg. 2006;109:200–11.PubMedCrossRef Walz M, Kolbow B, Auerbach F. Elastic, stable intramedullary nailing in midclavicular fractures--a change in treatment strategies? Unfallchirurg. 2006;109:200–11.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Witzel K. Intramedullary osteosynthesis in fractures of the mid-third of the clavicle in sports traumatology. Z Orthop Unfall. 2007;145:639–42.PubMedCrossRef Witzel K. Intramedullary osteosynthesis in fractures of the mid-third of the clavicle in sports traumatology. Z Orthop Unfall. 2007;145:639–42.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen Y-F, Wei H-F, Zhang C, Zeng B-F, Zhang C-Q, Xue J-F, Xie X-T, Lu Y. Retrospective comparison of titanium elastic nail (TEN) and reconstruction plate repair of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Shoulder and Elbow Surg. 2012;21:495–501.CrossRef Chen Y-F, Wei H-F, Zhang C, Zeng B-F, Zhang C-Q, Xue J-F, Xie X-T, Lu Y. Retrospective comparison of titanium elastic nail (TEN) and reconstruction plate repair of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Shoulder and Elbow Surg. 2012;21:495–501.CrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Jubel A, Andermahr J, Faymonville C, Binnebösel M, Prokop A, Rehm KE. Reconstruction of shoulder-girdle symmetry after midclavicular fractures. Stable, elastic intramedullary pinning versus rucksack bandage. Der Chirurg Zeitschrift für alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen. 2002;73:978–81.PubMedCrossRef Jubel A, Andermahr J, Faymonville C, Binnebösel M, Prokop A, Rehm KE. Reconstruction of shoulder-girdle symmetry after midclavicular fractures. Stable, elastic intramedullary pinning versus rucksack bandage. Der Chirurg Zeitschrift für alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen. 2002;73:978–81.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Jubel A, Andermahr J, Schiffer G, Tsironis K, Rehm KE. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures with a titanium nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;408:279–85. Jubel A, Andermahr J, Schiffer G, Tsironis K, Rehm KE. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures with a titanium nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;408:279–85.
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Lechler P, Sturm S, Boese CK, Bockmann B, Schwarting T, Ruchholtz S, Lahner M, Frink M. Surgical complications following ESIN for clavicular mid-shaft fractures do not limit functional or patient-perceived outcome. Injury. 2016;47:899–903.PubMedCrossRef Lechler P, Sturm S, Boese CK, Bockmann B, Schwarting T, Ruchholtz S, Lahner M, Frink M. Surgical complications following ESIN for clavicular mid-shaft fractures do not limit functional or patient-perceived outcome. Injury. 2016;47:899–903.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu HH, Chang CH, Chia WT, Chen CH, Tarng YW, Wong CY. Comparison of plates versus intramedullary nails for fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Trauma. 2010;69:E82–7.PubMed Liu HH, Chang CH, Chia WT, Chen CH, Tarng YW, Wong CY. Comparison of plates versus intramedullary nails for fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Trauma. 2010;69:E82–7.PubMed
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Mishra PK, Gupta A, Gaur SC. Midshaft clavicular fracture and titanium elastic intra-medullary nail. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:129–32.PubMedPubMedCentral Mishra PK, Gupta A, Gaur SC. Midshaft clavicular fracture and titanium elastic intra-medullary nail. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:129–32.PubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Tarng YW, Yang SW, Fang YP, Hsu CJ. Surgical management of uncomplicated midshaft clavicle fractures: a comparison between titanium elastic nails and small reconstruction plates. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;21:732–40.CrossRef Tarng YW, Yang SW, Fang YP, Hsu CJ. Surgical management of uncomplicated midshaft clavicle fractures: a comparison between titanium elastic nails and small reconstruction plates. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;21:732–40.CrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang YC, Fu YC, Chou SH, Liu PC, Tien YC, Lu CC. Titanium elastic nail versus plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a retrospective comparison study. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2015;31:473–9.PubMedCrossRef Wang YC, Fu YC, Chou SH, Liu PC, Tien YC, Lu CC. Titanium elastic nail versus plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a retrospective comparison study. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2015;31:473–9.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Eickhoff A, Fischer M, Gebhard F, Ehrnthaller C. Complications after intramedullary stabilization of clavicle fractures. [German]. Unfallchirurg. 2018;121:810–6.PubMedCrossRef Eickhoff A, Fischer M, Gebhard F, Ehrnthaller C. Complications after intramedullary stabilization of clavicle fractures. [German]. Unfallchirurg. 2018;121:810–6.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Frigg A, Rillmann P, Ryf C, Glaab R, Reissner L. Can complications of titanium elastic nailing with end cap for clavicular fractures be reduced? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3356–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Frigg A, Rillmann P, Ryf C, Glaab R, Reissner L. Can complications of titanium elastic nailing with end cap for clavicular fractures be reduced? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3356–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang T, Mei Y. Therapeutic effect analysis of closed reduction and intra-medullary nail fixation for treatment of middle clavicular fracture. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2019;12:11603–10. Zhang T, Mei Y. Therapeutic effect analysis of closed reduction and intra-medullary nail fixation for treatment of middle clavicular fracture. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2019;12:11603–10.
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Braun KF, Siebenlist S, Sandmann GH, Martetschläger F, Kraus T, Schrödl C, Kirchhoff C, Neumaier M. Functional results following titanium elastic-stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) of mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Acta Chir Orth Traum Cech. 2014;81:118–21. Braun KF, Siebenlist S, Sandmann GH, Martetschläger F, Kraus T, Schrödl C, Kirchhoff C, Neumaier M. Functional results following titanium elastic-stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) of mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Acta Chir Orth Traum Cech. 2014;81:118–21.
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Frigg A, Rillmann P, Perren T, Gerber M, Ryf C. Intramedullary nailing of clavicular midshaft fractures with the titanium elastic nail: problems and complications. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:352–9.PubMedCrossRef Frigg A, Rillmann P, Perren T, Gerber M, Ryf C. Intramedullary nailing of clavicular midshaft fractures with the titanium elastic nail: problems and complications. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:352–9.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Govindasamy R, Kasirajan S, Meleppuram JJ, Thonikadavath F. A retrospective study of titanium elastic stable intramedullary nailing in displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Rev Bras Ortop. 2017;52:270–7.PubMedCrossRef Govindasamy R, Kasirajan S, Meleppuram JJ, Thonikadavath F. A retrospective study of titanium elastic stable intramedullary nailing in displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Rev Bras Ortop. 2017;52:270–7.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Hartmann F, Hessmann MH, Gercek E, Rommens PM. Elastic intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures. Acta Chir Belg. 2008;108:428–32.PubMedCrossRef Hartmann F, Hessmann MH, Gercek E, Rommens PM. Elastic intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures. Acta Chir Belg. 2008;108:428–32.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Kadakia AP, Rambani R, Qamar F, McCoy S, Koch L, Venkateswaran B. Titanium elastic stable intramedullary nailing of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a review of 38 cases. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2012;6:82–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kadakia AP, Rambani R, Qamar F, McCoy S, Koch L, Venkateswaran B. Titanium elastic stable intramedullary nailing of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a review of 38 cases. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2012;6:82–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Keihan Shokouh H, Naderi MN, Keihan Shokouh M. Treatment of midshaft clavicular fractures with elastic titanium nails. Trauma Mon. 2014;19:e15623.PubMedPubMedCentral Keihan Shokouh H, Naderi MN, Keihan Shokouh M. Treatment of midshaft clavicular fractures with elastic titanium nails. Trauma Mon. 2014;19:e15623.PubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Kettler M, Schieker M, Braunstein V, Konig M, Mutschler W. Flexible intramedullary nailing for stabilization of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: technique and results in 87 patients. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:424–9.PubMedCrossRef Kettler M, Schieker M, Braunstein V, Konig M, Mutschler W. Flexible intramedullary nailing for stabilization of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: technique and results in 87 patients. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:424–9.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Kettler M, Schieker M, Braunstein V, König M, Mutschler W. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) of displaced midclavicular fractures with titanium nails. Aktuelle Traumatologie. 2005;35:303–7.CrossRef Kettler M, Schieker M, Braunstein V, König M, Mutschler W. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) of displaced midclavicular fractures with titanium nails. Aktuelle Traumatologie. 2005;35:303–7.CrossRef
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Langenhan R, Reimers N, Probst A. Intramedullary stabilisation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: does the fracture pattern (simple vs. complex) influence the anatomic and functional result. Z Orthop Unfall. 2014;152:588–95.PubMedCrossRef Langenhan R, Reimers N, Probst A. Intramedullary stabilisation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: does the fracture pattern (simple vs. complex) influence the anatomic and functional result. Z Orthop Unfall. 2014;152:588–95.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Lu CC, Liu PC, Huang SH, Hsieh CH, Tien YC, Chien SH. Complications and technical pitfalls of titanium elastic nail fixation for midclavicular fractures. Orthopedics. 2014;37:e377–83.PubMedCrossRef Lu CC, Liu PC, Huang SH, Hsieh CH, Tien YC, Chien SH. Complications and technical pitfalls of titanium elastic nail fixation for midclavicular fractures. Orthopedics. 2014;37:e377–83.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Mueller M, Burger C, Florczyk A, Striepens N, Rangger C. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures in adults: 32 patients followed for 1-5 years. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:421–3.PubMedCrossRef Mueller M, Burger C, Florczyk A, Striepens N, Rangger C. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of midclavicular fractures in adults: 32 patients followed for 1-5 years. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:421–3.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Suresha B, Srivastav S, Sud A, Singh H, Agarwal S. Titanium elastic nail fixation for clavicular fractures in adults. J Arthrosc Joint Surg. 2014;1:40–4.CrossRef Suresha B, Srivastav S, Sud A, Singh H, Agarwal S. Titanium elastic nail fixation for clavicular fractures in adults. J Arthrosc Joint Surg. 2014;1:40–4.CrossRef
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Eisenstein ED, Misenhimer JJ, Kotb A, Thabet AM, Abdelgawad AA. Management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescent patients using intramedullary flexible nails: a case series. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018;9:S97–s102.PubMedCrossRef Eisenstein ED, Misenhimer JJ, Kotb A, Thabet AM, Abdelgawad AA. Management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescent patients using intramedullary flexible nails: a case series. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018;9:S97–s102.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Frima H, Hulsmans MHJ, Houwert RM, Ahmed Ali U, Verleisdonk E, Sommer C, van Heijl M. End cap versus no end cap in intramedullary nailing for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: influence on implant-related irritation. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018;44:119–24.PubMedCrossRef Frima H, Hulsmans MHJ, Houwert RM, Ahmed Ali U, Verleisdonk E, Sommer C, van Heijl M. End cap versus no end cap in intramedullary nailing for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: influence on implant-related irritation. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018;44:119–24.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Keener JD, Dahners LE. Percutaneous pinning of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;7:175–81.CrossRef Keener JD, Dahners LE. Percutaneous pinning of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;7:175–81.CrossRef
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Prokop A, Schiffer G, Jubel A, Chmielnicki M. Intramedullary stabilisation of clavicula fractures. Z Orthop Unfall. 2013;151:449–51.PubMedCrossRef Prokop A, Schiffer G, Jubel A, Chmielnicki M. Intramedullary stabilisation of clavicula fractures. Z Orthop Unfall. 2013;151:449–51.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Zurück zum Zitat Calbiyik M, Zehir S, Ipek D. Minimally invasive implantation of a novel flexible intramedullary nail in patients with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42:711–7.PubMedCrossRef Calbiyik M, Zehir S, Ipek D. Minimally invasive implantation of a novel flexible intramedullary nail in patients with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42:711–7.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Zehir S, Zehir R, Sahin E, Calbiyik M. Comparison of novel intramedullary nailing with mini-invasive plating in surgical fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135:339–44.PubMedCrossRef Zehir S, Zehir R, Sahin E, Calbiyik M. Comparison of novel intramedullary nailing with mini-invasive plating in surgical fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135:339–44.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Zurück zum Zitat King PR, Ikram A, Eken MM, Lamberts RP. The effectiveness of a flexible locked intramedullary nail and an anatomically contoured locked plate to treat Clavicular shaft fractures: a 1-year randomized control trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:628–34.PubMedCrossRef King PR, Ikram A, Eken MM, Lamberts RP. The effectiveness of a flexible locked intramedullary nail and an anatomically contoured locked plate to treat Clavicular shaft fractures: a 1-year randomized control trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:628–34.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Zurück zum Zitat King PR, Ikram A, Lamberts RP. The treatment of clavicular shaft fractures with an innovative locked intramedullary device. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24:e1–6.CrossRef King PR, Ikram A, Lamberts RP. The treatment of clavicular shaft fractures with an innovative locked intramedullary device. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24:e1–6.CrossRef
71.
Zurück zum Zitat Zehir S, Calbiyik M, Sahin E, Ipek D. Comparison between locked intramedullary nailing and anatomical locking plating in the treatment of displaced clavicular midshaft fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50:291–7.PubMed Zehir S, Calbiyik M, Sahin E, Ipek D. Comparison between locked intramedullary nailing and anatomical locking plating in the treatment of displaced clavicular midshaft fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50:291–7.PubMed
72.
Zurück zum Zitat Zehir S, Akgul T, Zehir R. Results of midshaft clavicle fractures treated with expandable, elastic and locking intramedullary nails. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2015;49:13–7.PubMed Zehir S, Akgul T, Zehir R. Results of midshaft clavicle fractures treated with expandable, elastic and locking intramedullary nails. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2015;49:13–7.PubMed
73.
Zurück zum Zitat Bi H, Wang Y, Xiong Q, Li Y, Zhao Z, Yang Z. Minimally invasive fixation of midclavicular fractures with threaded elastic intramedullary nails. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25:833–40.PubMedCrossRef Bi H, Wang Y, Xiong Q, Li Y, Zhao Z, Yang Z. Minimally invasive fixation of midclavicular fractures with threaded elastic intramedullary nails. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25:833–40.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Zurück zum Zitat Zenni EJ Jr, Krieg JK, Rosen MJ. Open reduction and internal fixation of clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:147–51.PubMedCrossRef Zenni EJ Jr, Krieg JK, Rosen MJ. Open reduction and internal fixation of clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:147–51.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.PubMedCrossRef 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.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee YS, Huang HL, Lo TY, Hsieh YF, Huang CR. Surgical treatment of midclavicular fractures: a prospective comparison of Knowles pinning and plate fixation. Int Orthop. 2008;32:541–5.PubMedCrossRef Lee YS, Huang HL, Lo TY, Hsieh YF, Huang CR. Surgical treatment of midclavicular fractures: a prospective comparison of Knowles pinning and plate fixation. Int Orthop. 2008;32:541–5.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee YS, Lin CC, Huang CR, Chen GN, Liao WY. Operative treatment of midclavicular fractures in 62 elderly patients: Knowles pin versus plate. Orthopedics. 2007;30:959–64.PubMedCrossRef Lee YS, Lin CC, Huang CR, Chen GN, Liao WY. Operative treatment of midclavicular fractures in 62 elderly patients: Knowles pin versus plate. Orthopedics. 2007;30:959–64.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Zurück zum Zitat Wu CL, Chang HC, Lu KH. Risk factors for nonunion in 337 displaced midshaft clavicular fractures treated with Knowles pin fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:15–22.PubMedCrossRef Wu CL, Chang HC, Lu KH. Risk factors for nonunion in 337 displaced midshaft clavicular fractures treated with Knowles pin fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:15–22.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Zurück zum Zitat Fu B. Minimally invasive intramedullary nailing of clavicular fractures by a new titanium elastic nail. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50:494–500.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Fu B. Minimally invasive intramedullary nailing of clavicular fractures by a new titanium elastic nail. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50:494–500.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
82.
Zurück zum Zitat Houwert RM, Smeeing DP, Ahmed Ali U, Hietbrink F, Kruyt MC, van der Meijden OA. Plate fixation or intramedullary fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25:1195–203.CrossRef Houwert RM, Smeeing DP, Ahmed Ali U, Hietbrink F, Kruyt MC, van der Meijden OA. Plate fixation or intramedullary fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25:1195–203.CrossRef
83.
Zurück zum Zitat Hussain N, Sermer C, Prusick PJ, Banfield L, Atrey A, Bhandari M. Intramedullary nailing versus plate fixation for the treatment displaced Midshaft Clavicular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34912.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hussain N, Sermer C, Prusick PJ, Banfield L, Atrey A, Bhandari M. Intramedullary nailing versus plate fixation for the treatment displaced Midshaft Clavicular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34912.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
84.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang XH, Cheng L, Guo WJ, Li AB, Cheng GJ, Lei T, Zhao YM. Plate versus intramedullary fixation Care of Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94:e1792.CrossRef Wang XH, Cheng L, Guo WJ, Li AB, Cheng GJ, Lei T, Zhao YM. Plate versus intramedullary fixation Care of Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94:e1792.CrossRef
85.
Zurück zum Zitat Xiao H, Gao H, Zheng T, Zhao J, Tian Y. Plate fixation versus intramedullary fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures: meta-analysis of complications and functional outcomes. J Int Med Res. 2016;44:201–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Xiao H, Gao H, Zheng T, Zhao J, Tian Y. Plate fixation versus intramedullary fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures: meta-analysis of complications and functional outcomes. J Int Med Res. 2016;44:201–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
86.
Zurück zum Zitat Xie L, Zhao Z, Zhang S, Hu Y. Intramedullary fixation versus plate fixation for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97:e9752.CrossRef Xie L, Zhao Z, Zhang S, Hu Y. Intramedullary fixation versus plate fixation for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97:e9752.CrossRef
87.
Zurück zum Zitat Xu B, Lin Y, Wang Z, Cao J, Yang Y, Xia H, Zhang Y. Is intramedullary fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fracture superior to plate fixation? Evidence from a systematic review of discordant meta-analyses. Int J Surg. 2017;43:155–62.PubMedCrossRef Xu B, Lin Y, Wang Z, Cao J, Yang Y, Xia H, Zhang Y. Is intramedullary fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fracture superior to plate fixation? Evidence from a systematic review of discordant meta-analyses. Int J Surg. 2017;43:155–62.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang B, Zhu Y, Zhang F, Chen W, Tian Y, Zhang Y. Meta-analysis of plate fixation versus intramedullary fixation for the treatment of mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015;23:27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Zhang B, Zhu Y, Zhang F, Chen W, Tian Y, Zhang Y. Meta-analysis of plate fixation versus intramedullary fixation for the treatment of mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015;23:27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
89.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhu Y, Tian Y, Dong T, Chen W, Zhang F, Zhang Y. Management of the mid-shaft clavicle fractures using plate fixation versus intramedullary fixation: an updated meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2015;39:319–28.PubMedCrossRef Zhu Y, Tian Y, Dong T, Chen W, Zhang F, Zhang Y. Management of the mid-shaft clavicle fractures using plate fixation versus intramedullary fixation: an updated meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2015;39:319–28.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Functional outcomes and complications of intramedullary fixation devices for Midshaft clavicle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von
Paul Hoogervorst
Tess van Dam
Nico Verdonschot
Gerjon Hannink
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03256-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.