ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Practice patterns in indications, timing, and imaging for clavicle hardware removal: a survey among German-speaking shoulder surgeons.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClavicle hardware removal is a standard secondary procedure after fracture fixation, yet clinical decision-making regarding indications, timing, imaging, and postoperative recommendations remains highly variable. Despite the frequency of this intervention, no study to date has systematically assessed real-world practice patterns among shoulder and trauma surgeons in the German-speaking region. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current indications, preferred timing, imaging strategies, and postoperative recommendations related to clavicle hardware removal.
methodsA cross-sectional, web-based survey was distributed to members of the German-speaking Shoulder and Elbow Society (DVSE). The questionnaire assessed surgeon demographics, surgical experience, annual volume of hardware removal, indications for removal (general and absolute), preferred timing, imaging modalities used for preoperative planning, the influence of fracture location, and recommendations for return to sports. Only complete responses were included in the final analysis.
resultsA total of 198 surgeons completed the survey. Irritation (90.9%) and patient preference (87.9%) were the most frequently selected indications for hardware removal, whereas infection (56.6%) was the predominant absolute indication for removal. Most surgeons favored delayed removal: 38.9% recommended hardware removal after more than 18 months, and 42.9% relied on radiographic consolidation as the primary determinant of when to remove the hardware. Radiographs were routinely obtained (99.0%), while CT scans were used selectively (37.4%), particularly for early elective procedures. Most respondents reported no fracture-location-specific differences in removal frequency, although lateral fractures were most cited among those indicating variation. Recommendations for return to sport varied widely, with most surgeons allowing resumption of athletic activity between 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively.
conclusionDespite the high volume of clavicle hardware removal procedures, management strategies remain heterogeneous, underscoring persistent uncertainty in indications, timing, imaging protocols, and return-to-sport advice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.