Conservative management of ipsilateral clavicle and scapula fractures in adults: a retrospective study.

Q1 Medicine
L Lucenti, M D Castiglione, M A Musumeci, A Vescio, G Rovere, G Sciacca, G Testa, F Bosco, L Camarda, F M C Panvini, V Pavone
{"title":"Conservative management of ipsilateral clavicle and scapula fractures in adults: a retrospective study.","authors":"L Lucenti, M D Castiglione, M A Musumeci, A Vescio, G Rovere, G Sciacca, G Testa, F Bosco, L Camarda, F M C Panvini, V Pavone","doi":"10.1007/s12306-026-00968-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concomitant ipsilateral clavicle and scapula fractures are uncommon injuries, and their optimal management remains controversial. While surgical treatment has been advocated for selected unstable patterns, the role of conservative treatment, particularly in minimally displaced fractures, has not been clearly established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of concomitant clavicle and scapula fractures and to compare the clinical outcomes of conservatively treated patients with those of a matched cohort of patients with isolated clavicle fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed all adult patients treated conservatively for clavicle fractures at our institution between January 2020 and December 2022. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 84 patients were included in the final analysis. Nine patients (10.7%) presented with a concomitant ipsilateral scapular fracture and constituted the study group. A 1:1 matched control group of patients with isolated clavicle fractures was selected according to age, sex, fracture location, and injured side. Clinical outcomes were assessed at a minimum follow-up of one year using the Constant-Murley Score, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder Score (expressed as a percentage of the maximum obtainable score), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, shoulder range of motion, and muscle strength.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of the study group was 53.3 ± 20.1 years. Three patients presented with a floating shoulder injury. Conservative treatment consisted of immobilization using either a figure-of-eight bandage or an arm sling followed by progressive rehabilitation. At final follow-up, patients with combined clavicle and scapula fractures achieved a mean Constant-Murley Score of 91.0 ± 4.5, a mean UCLA Shoulder Score of 91.3 ± 4.7%, and a mean DASH score of 4.65 ± 2.08. No statistically significant differences were found between the study group and the matched control group for any functional outcome measure, shoulder range of motion, or muscle strength (all p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this retrospective cohort, the presence of an undisplaced or minimally displaced ipsilateral scapular fracture did not significantly influence the clinical outcomes of conservatively treated clavicle fractures. Conservative management appears to provide satisfactory functional results in carefully selected patients; however, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":18875,"journal":{"name":"MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-026-00968-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Concomitant ipsilateral clavicle and scapula fractures are uncommon injuries, and their optimal management remains controversial. While surgical treatment has been advocated for selected unstable patterns, the role of conservative treatment, particularly in minimally displaced fractures, has not been clearly established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of concomitant clavicle and scapula fractures and to compare the clinical outcomes of conservatively treated patients with those of a matched cohort of patients with isolated clavicle fractures.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all adult patients treated conservatively for clavicle fractures at our institution between January 2020 and December 2022. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 84 patients were included in the final analysis. Nine patients (10.7%) presented with a concomitant ipsilateral scapular fracture and constituted the study group. A 1:1 matched control group of patients with isolated clavicle fractures was selected according to age, sex, fracture location, and injured side. Clinical outcomes were assessed at a minimum follow-up of one year using the Constant-Murley Score, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder Score (expressed as a percentage of the maximum obtainable score), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, shoulder range of motion, and muscle strength.

Results: The mean age of the study group was 53.3 ± 20.1 years. Three patients presented with a floating shoulder injury. Conservative treatment consisted of immobilization using either a figure-of-eight bandage or an arm sling followed by progressive rehabilitation. At final follow-up, patients with combined clavicle and scapula fractures achieved a mean Constant-Murley Score of 91.0 ± 4.5, a mean UCLA Shoulder Score of 91.3 ± 4.7%, and a mean DASH score of 4.65 ± 2.08. No statistically significant differences were found between the study group and the matched control group for any functional outcome measure, shoulder range of motion, or muscle strength (all p > 0.05).

Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort, the presence of an undisplaced or minimally displaced ipsilateral scapular fracture did not significantly influence the clinical outcomes of conservatively treated clavicle fractures. Conservative management appears to provide satisfactory functional results in carefully selected patients; however, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

成人同侧锁骨和肩胛骨骨折的保守治疗:一项回顾性研究。
背景:同侧锁骨和肩胛骨合并骨折是一种罕见的损伤,其最佳治疗方法仍有争议。虽然手术治疗已被提倡,但保守治疗的作用,特别是在微创移位骨折中,尚未明确确立。本研究的目的是评估并发锁骨和肩胛骨骨折的发生率,并比较保守治疗的患者与匹配的孤立性锁骨骨折患者的临床结果。方法:我们回顾性分析了2020年1月至2022年12月在我院保守治疗锁骨骨折的所有成年患者。应用纳入和排除标准后,84例患者被纳入最终分析。9例患者(10.7%)伴有同侧肩胛骨骨折,构成研究组。根据年龄、性别、骨折部位、伤侧选择孤立性锁骨骨折患者为1:1匹配的对照组。临床结果在至少一年的随访中进行评估,采用Constant-Murley评分、加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)肩部评分(以最高可获得分数的百分比表示)、手臂、肩膀和手的残疾(DASH)问卷、肩部活动范围和肌肉力量。结果:研究组患者平均年龄53.3±20.1岁。3例患者表现为浮性肩伤。保守治疗包括使用8字形绷带或手臂吊带固定,随后进行渐进式康复。在最后随访时,锁骨和肩胛骨合并骨折患者的平均Constant-Murley评分为91.0±4.5,平均UCLA肩部评分为91.3±4.7%,平均DASH评分为4.65±2.08。在任何功能结果测量、肩部活动范围或肌肉力量方面,研究组与匹配的对照组之间没有统计学上的显著差异(均p < 0.05)。结论:在这个回顾性队列中,未移位或最小移位的同侧肩胛骨骨折的存在对保守治疗的锁骨骨折的临床结果没有显著影响。在精心挑选的患者中,保守治疗似乎提供了令人满意的功能结果;然而,需要更大规模的前瞻性研究来证实这些发现。
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
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Musculoskeletal Surgery – Formerly La Chirurgia degli Organi di Movimento, founded in 1917 at the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, is a peer-reviewed journal published three times a year. The journal provides up-to-date information to clinicians and scientists through the publication of original papers, reviews, case reports, and brief communications dealing with the pathogenesis and treatment of orthopaedic conditions.An electronic version is also available at http://www.springerlink.com.The journal is open for publication of supplements and for publishing abstracts of scientific meetings; conditions can be obtained from the Editors-in-Chief or the Publisher.
×
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