Published online Dec 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.1001
Peer-review started: January 29, 2021
First decision: March 31, 2021
Revised: April 13, 2021
Accepted: October 20, 2021
Article in press: October 20, 2021
Published online: December 18, 2021
Processing time: 319 Days and 1.1 Hours
In the past decade, there has been a shift in the paradigm for the treatment of clavicle fractures. In both adolescents and adults, the trend has been towards increasing rates of operative management.
It is unclear if the literature supports the superiority of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) to nonoperative management in the management of closed midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents.
The primary objective of this paper is to determine the rates of 90-d readmission and two-year reoperation after surgical management of midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents.
This retrospective study utilized data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database for California and Florida and included patients 10–18 years of age that underwent ORIF of midshaft clavicle fracture between 2005 and 2012.
In total, 3.29% (n = 11) of patients were readmitted within 90 days to a hospital at an average of 18.91 ± 18 d after discharge, while 15.87% (n = 53) of patients underwent a reoperation within two years at an average of 209.53 ± 151 d since the index surgery. The most common reason for readmission was a postoperative infection (n < 10). Reasons for reoperation included implant removal (n = 49) at an average time of 202.39 ± 138 d after surgery, and revision ORIF (n < 10) with an average time of 297 ± 289 days after index surgery. The odds of reoperation were higher for females (P < 0.01) and outpatients (P < 0.01), while the odds of reoperation were lower for patients who underwent surgery in California (P = 0.02).
There is a low rate of readmission and a high rate of reoperation after ORIF for midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents. There are significant differences for reoperation based on patient sex, location, and hospital type.
Future studies are needed to understand the applicability of the results nationally and improve the generalizability of these results. Additional prospective studies are needed to review short, mid, long-term outcomes, patient reported outcomes, and complications for the patient population.