ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2026
Conservative management of ipsilateral clavicle and scapula fractures in adults: a retrospective study.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcomitant 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsThe 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).
conclusionsIn 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42501263What 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.