Is fixation of both clavicle and scapula better than clavicle alone in surgical treatment of floating shoulder injury? A retrospective study.
Clavicle fracture
Floating shoulder injury
Glenopolar angle
Scapular fracture
Surgical fixation
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jul 2023
25 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
24
02
2023
accepted:
31
05
2023
medline:
27
7
2023
pubmed:
26
7
2023
entrez:
25
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Little research was available to explore which surgical fixation was better between fixation of both clavicle and scapula and clavicle alone in management of floating shoulder injury. Total 69 patients with floating shoulder injury receiving surgery from February 2005 to July 2020 participated in the study. 49 patients underwent fixation of the clavicle alone (Group C) while 20 patients underwent fixation of both clavicle and scapula (Group C + S). They were further divided into subgroups according to age: Group C1, Group C + S1 (age ≤ 55 years old) and Group C2, Group C + S2 (age>55 years old). The radiological parameter (glenopolar angle (GPA)) and clinical outcomes (Herscovici score, Constant-Murley shoulder outcome score (CSS score), and Visual Analogue Scale score (VAS score)) were collected and compared between these groups. The correlation between age and radiological parameter and clinical outcomes was calculated by the Spearman correlation analysis. All people were followed up for at least 1 year. The degree of change in GPA before and after surgery in Group C + S is significantly better than that in Group C. The Herscovici and CSS score in Group C + S2 were significantly higher than those in Group C2 at 1 month, 3 months and 1 year after surgery. However, no significant difference in Herscovici and CSS score was found at final follow-up (1 year after surgery) between Group C + S1 and Group C1. The VAS score in Group C + S2 at final follow-up was significantly lower than that in Group C2. No significant difference in VAS score at final follow-up was found between Group C + S1 and Group C1. In addition, the VAS score was negatively correlated with Herscovici and CSS score. No correlation was found between VAS score and GPA. Both types of surgical fixation are effective in management of floating shoulder injury. For young people with floating shoulder injury, both types of surgical fixation are equally effective. However, for older people with floating shoulder injury, fixation of both clavicle and scapula is better in prognosis than fixation of clavicle alone.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Little research was available to explore which surgical fixation was better between fixation of both clavicle and scapula and clavicle alone in management of floating shoulder injury.
METHODS
METHODS
Total 69 patients with floating shoulder injury receiving surgery from February 2005 to July 2020 participated in the study. 49 patients underwent fixation of the clavicle alone (Group C) while 20 patients underwent fixation of both clavicle and scapula (Group C + S). They were further divided into subgroups according to age: Group C1, Group C + S1 (age ≤ 55 years old) and Group C2, Group C + S2 (age>55 years old). The radiological parameter (glenopolar angle (GPA)) and clinical outcomes (Herscovici score, Constant-Murley shoulder outcome score (CSS score), and Visual Analogue Scale score (VAS score)) were collected and compared between these groups. The correlation between age and radiological parameter and clinical outcomes was calculated by the Spearman correlation analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All people were followed up for at least 1 year. The degree of change in GPA before and after surgery in Group C + S is significantly better than that in Group C. The Herscovici and CSS score in Group C + S2 were significantly higher than those in Group C2 at 1 month, 3 months and 1 year after surgery. However, no significant difference in Herscovici and CSS score was found at final follow-up (1 year after surgery) between Group C + S1 and Group C1. The VAS score in Group C + S2 at final follow-up was significantly lower than that in Group C2. No significant difference in VAS score at final follow-up was found between Group C + S1 and Group C1. In addition, the VAS score was negatively correlated with Herscovici and CSS score. No correlation was found between VAS score and GPA.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Both types of surgical fixation are effective in management of floating shoulder injury. For young people with floating shoulder injury, both types of surgical fixation are equally effective. However, for older people with floating shoulder injury, fixation of both clavicle and scapula is better in prognosis than fixation of clavicle alone.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37491231
doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06583-8
pii: 10.1186/s12891-023-06583-8
pmc: PMC10367396
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
605Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7(2):99-106
pubmed: 8459301
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992 May;74(3):362-4
pubmed: 1587877
J Orthop Surg Res. 2015 Jan 28;10:9
pubmed: 25626962
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Feb;104(1):53-58
pubmed: 29246483
JBJS Rev. 2018 Oct;6(10):e5
pubmed: 30325757
J Trauma. 2008 Jan;64(1):174-8
pubmed: 18188118
Emerg Radiol. 2019 Aug;26(4):459-464
pubmed: 30796547
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Aug;32 Suppl 1:S10-S11
pubmed: 29985893
Bone Joint J. 2013 Jun;95-B(6):815-9
pubmed: 23723278
J Orthop Traumatol. 2015 Sep;16(3):221-7
pubmed: 25940307
Int Orthop. 2002;26(3):145-9
pubmed: 12073105
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Feb;72(2):E8-13
pubmed: 22439229
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4
pubmed: 3791738
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Nov;88(11):1419-24
pubmed: 17075083
Injury. 2005 Oct;36(10):1176-81
pubmed: 16054146
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Oct 05;10(10):
pubmed: 33027989
Radiographics. 2008 Mar-Apr;28(2):463-79; quiz 619
pubmed: 18349451
J Trauma. 2004 Sep;57(3):595-602
pubmed: 15454808
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Aug;83(8):1188-94
pubmed: 11507127
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2001 Jun;121(6):313-6
pubmed: 11482461