Early Versus Delayed Surgery for Midshaft Clavicle Fractures: A Systematic Review

Background: Orthopaedic surgeons debate the timing of and necessity for surgical intervention when treating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (MCFs). This systematic review evaluates the available literature regarding functional outcomes, complication rates, nonunion, and reoperation rates between patients undergoing early versus delayed surgical management of MCFs.

Methods: Search strategies were applied in PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), Sport Discus (EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley). Following an initial screening and full-text review, demographic and study outcome data was extracted for comparison between the early fixation and delayed fixation studies.

Results: Twenty-one studies were identified for inclusion. This resulted in 1158 patients in the early group and 44 in the delayed. Demographics were similar between groups except for a higher percentage of males in the early group (81.6% vs. 61.4%) and longer time to surgery in the delayed group (4.6 days vs. 14.5 months). Disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand scores (3.6 vs. 13.0) and Constant-Murley scores (94.0 vs. 86.0) were better in the early group. Percentages of initial surgeries resulting in complication (33.8% vs. 63.6%), nonunion (1.2% vs. 11.4%), and nonroutine reoperation (15.8% vs. 34.1%) were higher in the delayed group.

Conclusion: Outcomes of nonunion, reoperation, complications, DASH scores, and CM scores favor early surgery over delayed surgery for MCFs. However, given the small cohort of delayed patients who still achieved moderate outcomes, we recommend a shared decision-making style for treatment recommendations regarding individual patients with MCFs. Level of Evidence: II.