Clavicle refractures after hardware removal: are there risk factors? A retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Franziska Kessler, Yannik Kalbas, Jan Hambrecht, Victoria Wlach, Sascha Halvachizadeh, Roman Pfeifer, Hans-Christoph Pape, Felix Karl-Ludwig Klingebiel, Christian Hierholzer
{"title":"Clavicle refractures after hardware removal: are there risk factors? A retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Franziska Kessler, Yannik Kalbas, Jan Hambrecht, Victoria Wlach, Sascha Halvachizadeh, Roman Pfeifer, Hans-Christoph Pape, Felix Karl-Ludwig Klingebiel, Christian Hierholzer","doi":"10.1007/s00068-025-02794-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Removal of symptomatic hardware after fracture fixation is common, especially in patients with clavicle fracture. Yet, refracture after hardware removal is a relatively common complication in those patients. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for clavicle refractures that could be influenced by the surgical treatment provided.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients from a level one trauma center from 2017 to 2022 were screened for eligibility. Inclusion criteria included hardware removal after plate osteosynthesis of the clavicle, age ≥ 18 years, and signed informed consent. Groups were stratified according to occurrence of refracture: no-refracture (NR) vs. refracture (R). Nearest-neighbor matching in a ratio of 5:1 was performed. Parameter investigated included baseline demographics, fracture characteristics and surgical treatment details. A subgroup analysis of only clavicle shaft fractures was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty patients were included with 50 patients in Group NR and 10 in Group R. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. A subgroup analysis on shaft fractures revealed that a significantly larger working length (number of empty screw holes adjacent to the fracture site) in Group NR (1.94 ± 0.85) compared to the refracture group (1.20 ± 0.92) (p = 0.042). Logistic regression yielded an inverse correlation with the number of empty screw holes to the fracture site and the occurrence of refractures (OR 0.369, 95% CI 0.132-0.873; p = 0.035). Time in situ, lag screw application, plate positioning and the total amount of screws did not affect either of the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An increased working length in patients with clavicle shaft fractures might be a protective measure for occurrence of refractures after hardware removal.</p>","PeriodicalId":12064,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","volume":"51 1","pages":"118"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11845419/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-025-02794-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Removal of symptomatic hardware after fracture fixation is common, especially in patients with clavicle fracture. Yet, refracture after hardware removal is a relatively common complication in those patients. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for clavicle refractures that could be influenced by the surgical treatment provided.

Methods: All patients from a level one trauma center from 2017 to 2022 were screened for eligibility. Inclusion criteria included hardware removal after plate osteosynthesis of the clavicle, age ≥ 18 years, and signed informed consent. Groups were stratified according to occurrence of refracture: no-refracture (NR) vs. refracture (R). Nearest-neighbor matching in a ratio of 5:1 was performed. Parameter investigated included baseline demographics, fracture characteristics and surgical treatment details. A subgroup analysis of only clavicle shaft fractures was performed.

Results: Sixty patients were included with 50 patients in Group NR and 10 in Group R. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. A subgroup analysis on shaft fractures revealed that a significantly larger working length (number of empty screw holes adjacent to the fracture site) in Group NR (1.94 ± 0.85) compared to the refracture group (1.20 ± 0.92) (p = 0.042). Logistic regression yielded an inverse correlation with the number of empty screw holes to the fracture site and the occurrence of refractures (OR 0.369, 95% CI 0.132-0.873; p = 0.035). Time in situ, lag screw application, plate positioning and the total amount of screws did not affect either of the groups.

Conclusion: An increased working length in patients with clavicle shaft fractures might be a protective measure for occurrence of refractures after hardware removal.

锁骨内固定取出后再骨折:有危险因素吗?回顾性队列研究。
目的:骨折固定后取出有症状的固定物是很常见的,特别是在锁骨骨折患者中。然而,在这些患者中,取出硬体后再骨折是相对常见的并发症。本研究的目的是确定锁骨骨折的危险因素,这些因素可能受到手术治疗的影响。方法:对2017 - 2022年某一级创伤中心收治的所有患者进行筛选。纳入标准包括锁骨钢板固定术后取出内固定物,年龄≥18岁,并签署知情同意。根据重复压裂的发生情况进行分组:无重复压裂(NR)和重复压裂(R)。以5:1的比例进行最近邻匹配。调查的参数包括基线人口统计学、骨折特征和手术治疗细节。仅对锁骨干骨折进行亚组分析。结果:共纳入60例患者,其中NR组50例,r组10例。两组间基线特征具有可比性。对轴骨折的亚组分析显示,NR组的工作长度(骨折部位附近的空螺钉孔数)(1.94±0.85)明显大于重复骨折组(1.20±0.92)(p = 0.042)。Logistic回归结果显示,骨折部位空螺钉孔数与再骨折发生率呈负相关(OR 0.369, 95% CI 0.132 ~ 0.873;p = 0.035)。固定时间、延迟螺钉应用、钢板定位和螺钉总数对两组均无影响。结论:锁骨干骨折患者增加工作长度可能是防止取出内固定物后骨折发生的保护性措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
311
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery aims to open an interdisciplinary forum that allows for the scientific exchange between basic and clinical science related to pathophysiology, diagnostics and treatment of traumatized patients. The journal covers all aspects of clinical management, operative treatment and related research of traumatic injuries. Clinical and experimental papers on issues relevant for the improvement of trauma care are published. Reviews, original articles, short communications and letters allow the appropriate presentation of major and minor topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信