Abstract
In 2007, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) by the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS) demonstrated better functional outcomes and a lower proportion of patients who developed malunion or nonunion following operative, compared with nonoperative, treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures. The primary aim of the present study was to compare the proportion of midshaft clavicle fractures treated operatively prior to and following the publication of the COTS RCT. An additional exploratory aim was to assess whether the proportion of midshaft clavicle fractures that were treated with surgery for malunion or nonunion decreased. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis used population-level administrative health data on the residents of British Columbia, Canada. Cases were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnostic codes and procedure fee codes. Adult patients (≥18 years) with closed middle-third clavicle fractures between 1997 and 2018 were included. Multivariable logistic regression modeling compared the proportion of clavicle fractures treated operatively before and after January 1, 2007, controlling for patient factors. The Pearson chi-square test compared the proportion of fractures treated operatively for malunion or nonunion in the cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 52,916 patients were included (mean age, 47.5 years; 65.6% male). More clavicle fractures were treated operatively from 2007 onward: 6.9% compared with 2.2% prior to 2007 (odds ratio [OR] = 3.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.03 to 3.70, p < 0.001). Male sex, moderate-to-high income, and younger age were associated with a greater proportion of operative fixation. The rate of surgery for clavicle malunion or nonunion also increased over this time period (to 4.1% from 3.4%, OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.38, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant change in surgeon practice regarding operative management of clavicle fractures following the publication of a Level-I RCT. With limited high-quality trials comparing operative and nonoperative management, it is important that clinicians, health-care institutions, and health-authority administrations determine what steps can be taken to increase responsiveness to new clinical studies and evidence-based guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.