Objective: An increasing number of meta-analyses comparing intramedullary fixation (IF) with plate fixation (PF) for displaced midshaft clavicle fracture have been reported, but the inconsistent results obtained might confuse decision-making. We systematically reviewed discordant meta-analyses for assisting the decision-maker in interpreting and selecting amongst discordant meta-analyses and providing surgical recommendations for displaced midshaft clavicle fracture according to currently best available evidence.
Methods: Meta-analyses on IF and PF for displaced midshaft clavicle fracture were identified by searching PubMed, Emabase and the Cochrane Library. A review of meta-analysis quality and data extraction was individually conducted by two reviewers. The meta-analysis providing the best available evidence was identified using the Jadad decision algorithm.
Results: Nine studies were included, five of which were of Level-II evidence and four of which were of Level-III evidence. These meta-analyses scored from 6 to 10 according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews instrument. With respect to the Jadad decision algorithm, the best meta-analysis was chosen depending upon publication characteristics and methodology of primary studies, language restrictions, and whether data on individual patients were analysed. A meta-analysis incorporating more randomised controlled trials was eventually selected. The best available evidence indicated that the differences between IF and PF were not significant in terms of shoulder function or the rate of treatment failure. However, IF significantly decreased the operative time and the rate of non-operative complications, especially the rate of infection.
Conclusions: Based on the best available evidence, IF may be superior to PF for treating displaced midshaft clavicle fracture.
Keywords: Clavicle fracture; Intramedullary fixation; Meta-analysis; Plate fixation; Systematic review.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.