Cargando…

Is fixation of both clavicle and scapula better than clavicle alone in surgical treatment of floating shoulder injury? A retrospective study

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Little research was available to explore which surgical fixation was better between fixation of both clavicle and scapula and clavicle alone in management of floating shoulder injury. METHODS: Total 69 patients with floating shoulder injury receiving surgery from February...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shao, Yijie, Zhu, Xu, Liu, Bo, Ji, Chenchen, Sun, Jiajia, Chen, Guangdong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10367396/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37491231
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06583-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Little research was available to explore which surgical fixation was better between fixation of both clavicle and scapula and clavicle alone in management of floating shoulder injury. METHODS: Total 69 patients with floating shoulder injury receiving surgery from February 2005 to July 2020 participated in the study. 49 patients underwent fixation of the clavicle alone (Group C) while 20 patients underwent fixation of both clavicle and scapula (Group C + S). They were further divided into subgroups according to age: Group C1, Group C + S1 (age ≤ 55 years old) and Group C2, Group C + S2 (age>55 years old). The radiological parameter (glenopolar angle (GPA)) and clinical outcomes (Herscovici score, Constant-Murley shoulder outcome score (CSS score), and Visual Analogue Scale score (VAS score)) were collected and compared between these groups. The correlation between age and radiological parameter and clinical outcomes was calculated by the Spearman correlation analysis. RESULTS: All people were followed up for at least 1 year. The degree of change in GPA before and after surgery in Group C + S is significantly better than that in Group C. The Herscovici and CSS score in Group C + S2 were significantly higher than those in Group C2 at 1 month, 3 months and 1 year after surgery. However, no significant difference in Herscovici and CSS score was found at final follow-up (1 year after surgery) between Group C + S1 and Group C1. The VAS score in Group C + S2 at final follow-up was significantly lower than that in Group C2. No significant difference in VAS score at final follow-up was found between Group C + S1 and Group C1. In addition, the VAS score was negatively correlated with Herscovici and CSS score. No correlation was found between VAS score and GPA. CONCLUSIONS: Both types of surgical fixation are effective in management of floating shoulder injury. For young people with floating shoulder injury, both types of surgical fixation are equally effective. However, for older people with floating shoulder injury, fixation of both clavicle and scapula is better in prognosis than fixation of clavicle alone.