Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics

From: Functional outcomes and complications of intramedullary fixation devices for Midshaft clavicle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Functional Outcomes

Complications

Author

Year

Level of Evidence

Study Design

Number of Patients

Clavicles

CMS(SD) at 12months

DASH(SD) at 12months

QuickDASH(SD) at 12months

Number of complications

Hardware irritation

Soft tissue problems

Hardware failure

Infection

Non-union

Protrusion/Telescoping/Migration

Delayedunion

Malunion

Pain

Cosmetic dissatisfaction

RockwoodPin&HagiePin

 Strauss et al.

2007

4

RCS

16

16

   

8

 

3

2

 

0

   

1

 

 Judd et al.

2009

1

RCT

29

29

   

21

9

 

1

8

1

 

1

   

 Ferran et al.

2010

1

RCT

17

17

92.1(6)

  

4

 

1

1

 

0

     

 Mudd et al.

2011

4

RCS

18

18

   

16

3

3

 

2

3

2

1

 

1

 

 Kleweno et al.

2011

3

RCS

18

18

   

5

2

1

1

1

0

     

 Millett et al.

2011

4

RCS

51

51

   

15

 

5

2

2

5

 

1

   

 Payne et al.

2011

4

RCS

68

68

   

62

30

 

3

7

2

 

1

 

15

 

 Frye et al.

2012

4

RCS

17

17

   

11

7

1

2

 

0

     

 Marlow et al.

2012

4

RCS

70

70

 

5.9a

 

31

12

4

 

8

2

   

1

 

 Wenninger et al.

2013

3

RCS

33

33

   

3

2

  

1

0

     

TEN

 Jubel et al.

2002

2

PCS

65

65

96.9(3.3)

  

8

 

2

  

1

5

    

 Jubel et al.

2002

3

RCC

20

20

97(4)

  

0

    

0

     

 Jubel et al.

2003

3

RCS

55

58

97.9(3.3)

  

9

3

2

 

0

1

2

    

 Jubel et al.

2003

2

PCS

12

12

98.3(1.5)

  

0

   

0

0

     

 Jubel et al.

2005

2

PCC

26

26

   

20

8

  

0

0

2

    

 Kettler et al.

2005

4

RCS

55

55

81(7.1)

  

31

14

2

 

0

1

6

 

2

2

 

 Walz et al.

2006

2

PCS

35

35

98.1(1.3)

  

6

5

  

0

0

1

    

 Keener et al.

2006

4

RCS

24

24

   

13

6

 

2

  

1

1

3

  

 Kettler et al.

2007

4

RCS

87

87

84(9)

6.9(7.2)

 

23

4

  

0

2

4

 

7

 

4

 Mueller et al.

2007

4

RCS

32

32

95(1.9)

5(2.3)

 

16

5

 

2

1

0

8

    

 Witzel

2007

2

RCT

35

35

   

0

          

 Hartmann et al.

2008

4

RCS

15

15

95.3(3.9)

  

4

4

  

0

0

     

 Frigg et al.

2009

4

RCS

34

34

 

1.5(3.2)

 

24

7

 

1

 

0

15

  

1

 

 Smekal et al.

2009

1

RCT

30

30

97.9(1.7)

  

10

  

2

0

0

7

1

   

 Liu et al.

2010

3

RCC

51

51

86.7(5.3)

13.5(3.9)

 

20

4

 

4

3

5

  

4

  

 Frigg et al.

2011

3

RCC

44

44

 

1.4(3.1)

 

14

5

 

1

 

1

6

    

 Chen et al.

2011

1

RCT

30

30

97(4.3)

2.74(3.6)

 

10

3

 

1

1

0

3

    

 Assobhi

2011

1

RCT

19

19

95.5(5.3)

  

4

3

 

0

0

0

    

1

 Smekal et al.

2011

1

RCT

60

60

98(3.6)

0.5(1.8)

 

19

5

 

2

1

0

7

2

   

 Kadakia et al.

2012

4

RCS

38

38

  

6.7(3.4)

11

18

  

0

0

1

    

 Wijdicks et al.

2012

4

RCS

47

47

   

60

29

 

1

4

0

26

  

2

 

 Tarng et al.

2012

3

RCC

25

25

96(2)

  

4

 

4

 

0

0

     

 Chen et al.

2012

3

RCC

57

57

95(3.2)

4(4.4)

 

32

4

 

3

1

1

17

    

 Prokop et al.

2013

4

RCS

136

136

97(3)

  

1

  

1

       

 Langenhan et al.

2014

4

RCS

37

37

96.0(5.3)

3(5)

 

4

   

1

0

3

    

 Saha et al.

2014

2

PCC

34

34

93.5(4.4)

  

13

12

  

0

0

     

 Shokouh et al.

2014

4

RCS

12

13

   

0

   

0

0

     

 Braun et al.

2014

4

RCS

40

40

86.3(8.1)

5.5(6.9)

 

19

1

2

  

0

12

    

 Narsaria et al.

2014

2

PCC

33

33

94.6(3.2)

  

4

  

1

1

1

     

 Suresha et al.

2014

4

RCS

20

20

94.6a

  

0

  

0

0

0

     

 Lu et al.

2014

4

RCS

27

27

93,6(9)

6.2(11.1)

 

17

8

 

0

0

0

9

    

 Wang et al.

2015

3

RCC

25

25

93.8(8.9)

5.5(10.5)

 

12

5

 

0

0

0

5

    

 Andrade-Silva et al.

2015

1

RCT

25

25

91.8(8.8)

7.5(12.5)

 

10

10

   

1

     

 vanderMeijden et al.

2015

1

RCT

62

62

96.3(11.8)

3.9(10.2)

 

43

33

         

 Eden et al.

2015

2

PCC

24

24

   

5

1

  

1

1

2

1

   

 Mishra et al.

2016

3

PCC

73

73

96.8(2.3)

  

15

7

  

3

0

2

3

   

 Lechler et al

2016

3

RCC

36

36

87.7(10.7)

3.9(6.6)

 

12

    

3

     

 Fuglesang et al.

2017

1

RCT

60

60

   

36

19

4

2

 

1

     

 Govindasamy et al.

2017

4

RCS

54

54

97.8(1)

  

19

15

  

3

0

1

1

   

 Eickhoff et al.

2018

3

RCC

99

99

   

39

29

1

  

2

26

    

 Eisenstein et al.

2018

4

RCS

7

7

   

4

2

1

   

1

    

 Frima et al.

2018

4

RCC

34

34

   

20

  

4

0

      

 Zhang et al.

2019

3

RCC

37

37

97.3(13.7)

  

2

  

0

1

   

0

  

SonomaCRx

 Zehir et al.

2015

1

RCT

24

24

  

7.7(2.2)

8

  

1

0

0

   

3

4

 King et al.

2015

2

PCS

47

47

90(13)

11(18)

 

3

  

2

1

0

     

 Zehir et al.

2015

4

RCS

17

17

94.3(2.8)

11.8(2.5)

 

2

  

1

1

0

     

 Calbiyik et al.

2016

1

RCT

35

35

92.9(4)

 

3.8(1.6)

5

  

2

1

0

 

1

  

1

 ZehirS et al.

2016

3

RCC

33

33

94.3(5.3)

  

4

  

1

2

0

   

2

1

 Kingetal.

2019

1

RCT

35

35

97(5)

5(6)

 

3

 

1

1

0

      

ThreadedPin

 Zenni et al.

1981

4

RCS

21

21

   

7

  

1

0

 

0

    

 Grassi et al

2001

3

RCC

40

40

82.9(8)

  

15

   

8

2

 

2

   

 Bi et al.

2015

2

PCS

45

45

96.5(9)

1.4(12.5)

 

20

 

19

1

0

0

     

KnowlesPin

 Chu et al

2002

4

RCS

78

78

92(13.8)

  

4

  

1

   

3

   

 Lee et al

2007

2

RCT

32

32

85(8.8)

  

0

          

 Lee et al.

2008

3

RCC

56

56

   

4

4

         

 Wu et al.

2013

4

RCC

337

337

   

19

    

19

     

2ndGenerationTEN

 Fu

2016

4

RCC

36

36

93.4(2.7)

2.5(1.6)

 

3

1

    

2

    
  1. RCS retrospective case series, RCC retrospective comparative cohort, PCS prospective case series, PCC prospective comparative cohort, RCT randomized clinical trail
  2. aNo range or SD reported