Global trends influencing orthopedic surgeons’ midshaft clavicle fracture management: a Bullet Health Analysis

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Purpose: The management of midshaft clavicle fractures varies depending on fracture characteristics, patient demographics, and surgeon preferences. However, global differences in practice patterns and surgical decision-making for this injury remain poorly characterized.Methods: An international survey was conducted through Orthobullets between March 2021 and September 2024, targeting practicing orthopedic surgeons. Standardized polls, created collaboratively using the best available evidence and a peer-reviewed, evidence-based item list, were designed to capture global treatment preferences. Analyses were then performed to evaluate variation across subspecialties and practice environments. Multivariable regression was applied to examine associations between subspecialty, practice type, the likelihood of selecting operative management, and the preferred surgical techniques.Results: The study included 2,364 surgeons from 76 countries. Overall, 46% (1,076 of 2,337 respondents) selected operative treatment, with notable regional differences. Surgeons from Asia (odds ratio [OR], 1.650), Africa (OR, 1.988), and Latin America (OR, 1.785) were more likely to choose surgery, whereas those from Oceania (OR, 0.464) were less likely. Trauma specialist were 1.45 times more likely to offer operative management. Regarding immobilization, 73.4% preferred a sling, while 23.4% chose a figure-of-eight brace. Among surgeons opting for surgery, 93% (1,479 of 1,590 respondents) selected open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws.Conclusions: This study demonstrates a notable trend toward operative management of midshaft clavicle fractures, influenced by subspecialty and practice environment. These findings highlight the evolving landscape of fracture care and emphasize the need for standardized approaches and broader understanding across diverse healthcare systems.

This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit: