The clavicle can be seen as the gatekeeper of the thorax. In polytrauma patients, a clavicle fracture is easily diagnosed during primary survey and may indicate underlying thoracic injury, as the rate and extent of concomitant thoracic injury are high.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAlthough extensive research for the optimal treatment of clavicle fractures has been performed, comparative studies between monotrauma and polytrauma patients are lacking.ObjectiveTo compare fracture distribution and treatment in monotrauma and polytrauma patients with a clavicle fracture.MethodsSingle center retrospective cohort study. Fractures were classified by the Robinson classification. Monotrauma patients sustained only a clavicle fracture or a clavicle fracture plus a minor abrasion, hematoma, or superficial skin lesion leading to an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 4 or 5 respectively. Polytrauma patients had an ISS ≥16 as a result of injury in 2 or more Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) regions.Results154 monotrauma and 155 polytrauma patients with a clavicle fracture were identified. Monotrauma patients had a higher incidence of Type IIB fractures (displaced midshaft) compared to polytrauma patients (P = 0.002). No difference was observed regarding Type I (medial) and Type III (lateral) fractures. In monotrauma patients, Type IIB fractures were treated operatively more frequently (P = 0.004). The initial treatment for Type I and Type III fractures did not differ between monotrauma and polytrauma patients.ConclusionsMonotrauma patients had a higher incidence of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures compared to polytrauma patients, and monotrauma patients with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were treated operatively more frequently. No differences were found in the distribution and treatment of medial and lateral clavicle fractures.

No abstract

BackgroundDespite an increasing interest in the treatment of clavicle fractures, this is still a not yet defined area in severely injured patients as most studies exclude these patients. Analyzing fracture type and evaluate accompanying injuries can provide valuable information in an early stage of trauma care.ObjectiveTo identify prevalence, fracture type and accompanying injuries of clavicle fractures in the severely injured patient.MethodsWe included all severely injured patients (ISS ≥ 16) with a clavicle fracture from January 2007 - December 2011. We prospectively collected data about demographics, injuries, trauma mechanism and mortality. Fractures were classified using the Robinson classification.ResultsA total of 1534 patients had an ISS ≥16, of which 164 (10.7%) patients had a clavicle fracture. Traffic related accidents were the main cause of injury (65%). Most fractures were midshaft fractures (66.5%) of which 56% were displaced. Seven patients were treated operatively. There was no significant difference in ISS between the three fracture types. 83% of the patients sustained additional injury to the head and neck; the most prevalent injuries were skull or skull base fractures (41.5%) and maxillofacial fractures (29%). Furthermore 77% of the patients had additional thoracic injury; the most prevalent injuries were rib fractures (59%) and a pneumothorax (38%). The mortality rate was 21.4%.ConclusionA clavicle fracture was present in more than 10% of the severely injured patients. Displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were the most common type of fracture. Additional injuries to the head and neck region occurred in 83% of the patients and thoracic injuries occurred in 77% of the patients.

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant when evaluating the treatment of orthopaedic injuries. Little is known about how PROs may vary in the setting of polytrauma or secondary to high-energy injury mechanisms, even for common injuries such as distal radius fractures. Questions/purposes (1) Are polytrauma and high-energy injury mechanisms associated with poorer long-term PROs (EuroQol Five Dimension Three Levels [EQ-5D-3L] and QuickDASH scores) after distal radius fractures? (2) What are the median EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS [EuroQol VAS], and QuickDASH scores for distal radius fractures in patients with polytrauma, high-energy monotrauma and low-energy monotrauma Methods This was a retrospective study with followup by questionnaire. Patients treated both surgically and conservatively for distal radius fractures at a single Level 1 trauma center between 2008 and 2015 were approached to complete questionnaires on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-VAS) and wrist function (the QuickDASH). Patients were grouped according to those with polytrauma (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16), high-energy trauma (ISS < 16), and low-energy trauma based on the ISS score and injury mechanism. Initially, 409 patients were identified, of whom 345 met the inclusion criteria for followup. Two hundred sixty-five patients responded (response rate, 77% for all patients; 75% for polytrauma patients; 76% for high-energy monotrauma; 78% for low-energy monotrauma (p = 0.799 for difference between the groups). There were no major differences in baseline characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents. The association between polytrauma and high-energy injury mechanisms and PROs was assessed using forward stepwise regression modeling after performing simple bivariate linear regression analyses to identify associations between individual factors and PROs. Median outcome scores were calculated and presented. Results Polytrauma (intraarticular: β -0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.21 to -0.02]; p = 0.015) was associated with lower HRQoL and poorer wrist function (extraarticular: β 11.9; 95% CI, 0.4–23.4; p = 0.043; intraarticular: β 8.2; 95% CI, 2.1–14.3; p = 0.009). High-energy was associated with worse QuickDASH scores as well (extraarticular: β 9.5; 95% CI, 0.8–18.3; p = 0.033; intraarticular: β 11.8; 95% CI, 5.7–17.8; p < 0.001). For polytrauma, high-energy trauma, and low-energy trauma, the respective median EQ-5D-3L outcome scores were 0.84 (range, -0.33 to 1.00), 0.85 (range, 0.17–1.00), and 1.00 (range, 0.174–1.00). The VAS scores were 79 (range, 30–100), 80 (range, 50–100), and 80 (range, 40–100), and the QuickDASH scores were 7 (range, 0– 82), 11 (range, 0–73), and 5 (range, 0–66), respectively. Conclusions High-energy injury mechanisms and worse HRQoL scores were independently associated with slightly inferior wrist function after wrist fractures. Along with relatively well-known demographic and injury characteristics (gender and articular involvement), factors related to injury context (polytrauma, high-energy trauma) may account for differences in patient-reported wrist function after distal radius fractures. This information may be used to counsel patients who suffer a wrist fracture from polytrauma or high-energy trauma and to put their outcomes in context. Future research should prospectively explore whether our findings can be used to help providers to set better expectations on expected recovery. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.