Evidence Hub

Malunions and Nonunions of the Acromion and Coracoid Proceses: A Comparison of Functional Outcomes Before and After Reconstruction

Ogunleye TD, Schirmers J, Gilbertson JA, Schroder LK, Cole PA

Journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2020

16 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess surgical and functional outcomes in a cohort of patients having operatively reconstructed scapula process malunions and/or nonunions.

DESIGN: Retrospective case series.

SETTING: Level I trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Between 2003 and 2018, we identified 16 patients who presented to our institution with symptoms associated with a nonunion or malunion of closed, displaced fractures of the scapula processes after acute injury mechanisms.

INTERVENTION: Surgical osteotomy of the malunion or debridement of the nonunion and subsequent reconstruction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measured included range of motion, strength, and DASH. Return to work was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS: Among 13 of the 16 (81%) patients with ≥12 months follow-up, the mean follow-up was 34 months (range, 12-112 months). Three patients were lost to follow-up. The mean DASH score improved from 56.4 ± 22.4 preoperatively to 23.4 ± 22.2 postoperatively (P < 0.001). Among the patients with ≥1-year follow-up, range of motion improved from preoperative to final follow-up in abduction (P = 0.020). Among the 15 of 16 patients for whom occupation data are available, 73% either returned to their original occupation (n = 7) or did not due to reasons other than their reconstructive surgery (n = 4). Two postoperative complications occurred including failure of acromion nonunion fixation at 4 months and went on to heal after revision surgery. All reconstructions united…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 16 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free