Search

Background: Clavicle fractures represent up to 10 % of all fractures, affecting mainly a young population. Open reduction and internal plate fixation provide good results, but evidence on the best plate positioning is still unclear. Aim of this retrospective study was to compare superior and antero-inferior plating positioning in the surgical treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures., Materials and Methods: 104 patients aged > 18 years, treated surgically with plate fixation (51 superior, 53 antero-inferior) for a midshaft clavicle fracture from January 2010 to April 2021 were included. At the time of the visit, mean follow-up time was 6.6 ± 2.6 years. Shoulder function was evaluated with the use of Constant-Murley Score (CMS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score. Return to sport, aesthetic satisfaction, operative time, radiological outcomes, rate of implant removal, and overall patient satisfaction were documented as well., Results: Mean CMS was 94.1 ± 10.0 points in the superior plating group and 93.4 ± 11.6 points in the antero-inferior plating group. DASH score: 4.6 ± 11.0 superior, 5.1 ± 10.5 antero-inferior. Return to sport: 8.2 ± 2.9 superior, 8.2 ± 3.0 antero-inferior. Aesthetic satisfaction: 8.9 ± 1.6 superior, 8.8 ± 2.1 antero-inferior. Overall satisfaction: 9.1 ± 1.5 superior, 8.9 ± 1.7 antero-inferior. The comparison between groups showed no statistically significant differences (p = n.s.) for all outcome measures. Operative time: 101.6 ± 27.3 min superior, 113.0 ± 31.6 min antero-inferior (p = 0.05). Radiological follow-up documented one non-union and one mal-union in the antero-inferior plating group. Overall, 63 patients underwent plate removal: 58.8 % in the superior plating group and 62.3 % in the antero-inferior plating group (p = n.s.). Main reason for plate removal was pain/discomfort., Conclusions: Both superior and antero-inferior plating provided excellent clinical, functional, and radiological results for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures, without significant differences between groups. The superior plating group showed a statistically shorter operative time. High rate of re-interventions with implant removal was documented in both groups., Level of Evidence: III., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To compare the two main surgical approaches to address proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) stratified for Neer fracture types, to demonstrate which approach gives the best result for each fracture type., Methods: A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to 4 January 2022. Inclusion criteria were studies comparing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with deltopectoral (DP) approach and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with deltosplit (DS) approach of PHFs. Patient's demographic data, fracture type, Constant-Murley Score (CMS), operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, fluoroscopy time, and radiological outcomes were extracted. Results were stratified for each type of Neer fracture., Results: Eleven studies (798 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. No functional difference was found in the CMS between the two groups for each type of Neer (P = n.s.): for PHFs Neer II, the mean CMS was 72.5 (s.e. 5.9) points in the ORIF group and 79.6 (s.e. 2.5) points in the MIPO group; for Neer III, 77.8 (s.e. 2.0) in the ORIF and 76.4 (se 3.0) in the MIPO; and for Neer IV, 70.6 (s.e. 2.7) in the ORIF and 60.9 (s.e. 6.3) in the MIPO. The operation time in the MIPO group was significantly lower than in the ORIF group for both Neer II (P = 0.0461) and Neer III (P = 0.0037) fractures., Conclusion: The MIPO with DS approach demonstrated no significant differences in the results to the ORIF with DP approach for the different Neer fractures in terms of functional results, with a similar outcome, especially for the Neer II and III fracture types. The MIPO technique proved to be as safe and effective as the ORIF approach.

Background: Osteoid osteoma (OO) is a primary benign tumor that affects mainly young patients. Ten percent of all OO are located in the vertebral column. Treatment of spinal OO is challenging and there is no consensus in the literature on the best operative approach., Purpose: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus surgical excision for the treatment of spinal OO., Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from inception up to 22 March 2022. Studies addressing surgical excision or RFA for the treatment of spinal OO were included. The main outcomes evaluated were pain before and after intervention, the treatments success rate, defined as complete pain relief with no recurrence until the last follow-up, and the number and type of complications., Results: Thirty-one studies (749 patients) were included. For patients who underwent surgical excision, 19 studies reported a mean treatment success rate of 85.6%, while in the RFA treatment group, 18 studies reported a mean success rate of 88.6%. At last follow-up, the pooled mean difference in pain scores from baseline on a 0-10 scale was 5.8 points in the surgical excision group and 6.7 points in the RFA group. Recurrences were observed in 5.6% of the patients who underwent surgical excision and in 6.7% of the patients treated with RFA. The complication rate was 7.8% in the surgical excision group and 4.4% in the RFA group., Conclusions: This meta-analysis found high global success rates for both surgical and RFA treatments. Both treatments were efficient in pain relief and presented a low rate of recurrences. The complication rate was low for both treatments. Compared to surgical excision, RFA is a less invasive procedure which proved to be a safe and as effective option for the treatment of spinal OO., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether volar locking plate (VLP) fixation leads to better clinical and radiological outcomes than those of closed reduction and cast immobilization for the treatment of distal radius fractures (DRFs)., Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to January 2022. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies comparing VLP fixation with cast immobilization for DRFs. Investigated parameters were Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation questionnaire, Disabilities of the Harm, Shoulder, and Hand score (DASH), range of motion (ROM), grip strength, quality of life (QoL), radiological outcome, and complication and reoperation rate, both at short- and mid-/long-term follow-up. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was performed with Downs and Black's 'Checklist for Measuring Quality'., Results: A total of 12 RCTs (1368 patients) were included. No difference was found for ROM, grip strength, QoL, and reoperation, while the DASH at 3 months was statistically better in the VLP group (P < 0.05). No clinical differences were confirmed at longer follow-up. From a radiological perspective, only radial inclination (4°) and ulnar variance (mean difference 1.1 mm) at >3 months reached statistical significance in favor of the VLP group (both P < 0.05). Fewer complications were found in the VLP group (P < 0.05), but they did not result in different reintervention rates., Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that the surgical approach leads to a better clinical outcome in the first months, better fracture alignment, and lower complication rate. However, no differences in the clinical outcomes have been confirmed after 3 months. Overall, these findings suggest operative treatment for people with higher functional demand requiring a faster recovery, while they support the benefit of a more conservative approach in less demanding patients.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the commentary [...].

Purpose: The aim of this study was to quantify the rate of complications and reinterventions in patients treated with PHILOS plate for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) synthesis., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 7 October 2021. Studies describing medium and long-term complications in PHF synthesis using the PHILOS plate were included. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on complications and causes of reinterventions. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was performed with the Downs and Black's "Checklist for Measuring Quality"., Results: Seventy-six studies including 4200 patients met the inclusion criteria. The complication rate was 23.8%, and the main cause was screw cut-out (4.1%), followed by avascular necrosis (AVN) (3.1%) and subacromial impingement (1.5%). In patients over 55 years, the complication rate was 29.5%. In the deltopectoral (DP) approach the complication rate was 23.8%, and in the delto-split (DS) it was 17.5%, but no difference between the two approaches was seen when considering the type of fracture. The overall reintervention rate was 10.5% in the overall population and 19.0% in older patients., Conclusions: Proximal humerus synthesis with a PHILOS plate has high complications and reintervention rates. The most frequent complication was screw cut-out, followed by humeral head AVN and subacromial impingement. These results need to be further investigated to better understand both the type of patient and fracture that is more at risk of complications and reintervention and to compare pros and cons of the PHILOS plate with respect to the other solutions to manage PHFs.