Global trends influencing orthopedic surgeons' midshaft clavicle fracture management: a Bullet Health Analysis.

IF 0.6
Journal of Trauma and Injury Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-03 DOI:10.20408/jti.2025.0099
Arthur P Drouaud, Carolina Stocchi, Christoph Schroen, Kilian T Drouaud, Jan Szatkowski, Derek Moore
{"title":"Global trends influencing orthopedic surgeons' midshaft clavicle fracture management: a Bullet Health Analysis.","authors":"Arthur P Drouaud, Carolina Stocchi, Christoph Schroen, Kilian T Drouaud, Jan Szatkowski, Derek Moore","doi":"10.20408/jti.2025.0099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The management of midshaft clavicle fractures varies depending on fracture characteristics, patient demographics, and surgeon preferences. However, global differences in practice patterns and surgical decision-making for this injury remain poorly characterized.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An international survey was conducted through Orthobullets between March 2021 and September 2024, targeting practicing orthopedic surgeons. Standardized polls, created collaboratively using the best available evidence and a peer-reviewed, evidence-based item list, were designed to capture global treatment preferences. Analyses were then performed to evaluate variation across subspecialties and practice environments. Multivariable regression was applied to examine associations between subspecialty, practice type, the likelihood of selecting operative management, and the preferred surgical techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 2,364 surgeons from 76 countries. Overall, 46% (1,076 of 2,337 respondents) selected operative treatment, with notable regional differences. Surgeons from Asia (odds ratio [OR], 1.650), Africa (OR, 1.988), and Latin America (OR, 1.785) were more likely to choose surgery, whereas those from Oceania (OR, 0.464) were less likely. Trauma specialist were 1.45 times more likely to offer operative management. Regarding immobilization, 73.4% preferred a sling, while 23.4% chose a figure-of-eight brace. Among surgeons opting for surgery, 93% (1,479 of 1,590 respondents) selected open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates a notable trend toward operative management of midshaft clavicle fractures, influenced by subspecialty and practice environment. These findings highlight the evolving landscape of fracture care and emphasize the need for standardized approaches and broader understanding across diverse healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":52698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Injury","volume":" ","pages":"34-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13040092/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Injury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20408/jti.2025.0099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The management of midshaft clavicle fractures varies depending on fracture characteristics, patient demographics, and surgeon preferences. However, global differences in practice patterns and surgical decision-making for this injury remain poorly characterized.

Methods: An international survey was conducted through Orthobullets between March 2021 and September 2024, targeting practicing orthopedic surgeons. Standardized polls, created collaboratively using the best available evidence and a peer-reviewed, evidence-based item list, were designed to capture global treatment preferences. Analyses were then performed to evaluate variation across subspecialties and practice environments. Multivariable regression was applied to examine associations between subspecialty, practice type, the likelihood of selecting operative management, and the preferred surgical techniques.

Results: The study included 2,364 surgeons from 76 countries. Overall, 46% (1,076 of 2,337 respondents) selected operative treatment, with notable regional differences. Surgeons from Asia (odds ratio [OR], 1.650), Africa (OR, 1.988), and Latin America (OR, 1.785) were more likely to choose surgery, whereas those from Oceania (OR, 0.464) were less likely. Trauma specialist were 1.45 times more likely to offer operative management. Regarding immobilization, 73.4% preferred a sling, while 23.4% chose a figure-of-eight brace. Among surgeons opting for surgery, 93% (1,479 of 1,590 respondents) selected open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates a notable trend toward operative management of midshaft clavicle fractures, influenced by subspecialty and practice environment. These findings highlight the evolving landscape of fracture care and emphasize the need for standardized approaches and broader understanding across diverse healthcare systems.

影响骨科医生锁骨中轴骨折治疗的全球趋势:子弹健康分析。
目的:锁骨中轴骨折的处理取决于骨折特征、患者人口统计学和外科医生的偏好。然而,这种损伤的实践模式和手术决策的全球差异仍然缺乏特征。方法:在2021年3月至2024年9月期间,通过Orthobullets对执业骨科医生进行国际调查。标准化民意调查是利用现有的最佳证据和同行评议的循证项目清单协同创建的,旨在捕捉全球治疗偏好。然后进行分析,以评估跨亚专业和实践环境的变化。应用多变量回归来检验亚专科、实践类型、选择手术管理的可能性和首选手术技术之间的关系。结果:该研究包括来自76个国家的2364名外科医生。总体而言,2,337名受访者中有46%(1,076人)选择手术治疗,地区差异显著。来自亚洲(比值比[OR], 1.650)、非洲(比值比[OR], 1.988)和拉丁美洲(比值比[OR], 1.785)的外科医生更可能选择手术,而来自大洋洲(比值比[OR], 0.464)的外科医生选择手术的可能性较小。创伤专科医生提供手术治疗的可能性是前者的1.45倍。在固定方面,73.4%的患者选择吊带,23.4%的患者选择8字形支具。在选择手术的外科医生中,93%(1590名应答者中的1479名)选择切开复位和钢板螺钉内固定。结论:受亚专科和实践环境的影响,本研究显示锁骨中轴骨折的手术治疗有明显的趋势。这些发现突出了骨折护理的发展前景,并强调了标准化方法和在不同医疗保健系统中更广泛理解的必要性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书