Midshaft clavicle fractures affect young, active patients with high functional demands. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) achieve reliable union, but it is unclear whether outcomes meet patient-defined standards. This study aimed to (1) establish Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) one year after fixation, (2) determine the proportion of patients meeting these thresholds, and (3) assess each metric's ability to discriminate satisfaction.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from 166 patients who underwent ORIF between 2017 and 2021 with ≥1-year follow-up. Patients completed ASES, SANE, VAS, and a validated satisfaction anchor. PASS thresholds were derived via ROC analysis and the Youden index. Discrimination was assessed using area under the curve (AUC).
Results
At one year, 87.3% reported satisfaction. PASS thresholds were ASES ≥100, SANE ≥90, and VAS ≤0. Despite high average scores (ASES 96.2; SANE 85.1; VAS 0.7), only 63.9%, 56.7%, and 59.4% met PASS, respectively. ASES (AUC 0.678) and VAS (0.679) showed modest discrimination, while SANE performed poorly (0.569).
Conclusion
Most patients are satisfied after ORIF, but many fail to meet PROM-based PASS, highlighting the need to align surgical success with patient-defined benchmarks.
SaragagliaDRefaieR. Displaced mid-shaft clavicular fractures: state of the art for athletes and young active people. Int Orthop2021; 45: 2679–2686.
2.
BurnhamJMKimDCKamineniS. Midshaft clavicle fractures: a critical review. Orthopedics2016; 39: e814–e821.
3.
WieselBNagdaSMehtaS, et al.Management of midshaft clavicle fractures in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2018; 26: e468–e476.
4.
RanallettaMRossiLAPiuzziNS, et al.Return to sports after plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures in athletes. Am J Sports Med2015; 43: 565–569.
5.
AnnicchiaricoNLattaASantoliniE. Plate osteosynthesis for mid-shaft clavicle fractures: an update. Injury2023; 54: S53–S57.
6.
PolinskySGEdmondsEWBastromTP, et al.5-Year Radiographic and functional outcomes of nonoperative treatment of completely displaced midshaft clavicular fractures in teenagers. Am J Sports Med2024; 52: 1032–1039.
7.
YanMZYuenWYeungS, et al.Operative management of midshaft clavicle fractures demonstrates better long-term outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS ONE2022; 17: e0267861.
8.
AhrensPMGarlickNIBarberJ, et al.The clavicle trial: a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing operative with nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am2017; 99: 1345–1354.
9.
WoltzSStegemanSAKrijnenP, et al.Plate fixation compared with nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am2017; 99: 106–112.
10.
RobinsonCMGoudieEBMurrayIR, et al.Open reduction and plate fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am2013; 95: 1576–1584.
AxelrodDEEkhtiariSBozzoA, et al.What is the best evidence for management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res2020; 478: 392–402.
13.
AhmedAFSalamehMAlKhatibN, et al.Open reduction and internal fixation versus nonsurgical treatment in displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma2018; 32: e276–e283.
14.
JerayKJBroderickJSMullisBH, et al.Multicenter, prospective, observational study of nonoperative versus operative treatment for high-energy midshaft clavicle fractures. J Orthop Trauma2024; 38: 345–350.
15.
BanIKristensenMTBarfodKW, et al.Neither operative nor nonoperative approach is superior for treating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a partially blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. Bone Joint J2021; 103-B: 762–768.
16.
HeyworthBEPennockATLiY, et al.Two-year functional outcomes of operative vs nonoperative treatment of completely displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents: results from the prospective multicenter FACTS study group. Am J Sports Med2022; 50: 3045–3055.
17.
ReddyRPNjoku-AustinCCharlesS, et al.Dual mini-fragment plate fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures demonstrates fewer union complications but similar patient-reported outcomes compared to nonoperative management: a cohort study with mean 3.4-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2025; 34: 1712–1718.
18.
d’HeurleALeTGraweB, et al.Perioperative risks associated with the operative treatment of clavicle fractures. Injury2013; 44: 1579–1581.
19.
ScanaliatoJPGreenCKSandlerAB, et al.Establishing the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after arthroscopic posterior labral repair for posterior glenohumeral instability. Am J Sports Med2024; 52: 207–214.
20.
KimDMKimTHKholinneE, et al.Minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med2020; 48: 2650–2659.
21.
YeomJWKimDMLeeJ-B, et al.Patient acceptable symptom state, minimal clinically important difference, and substantial clinical benefit after arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction. Am J Sports Med2022; 50: 3308–3317.
22.
LongYZhengZ-ZLiX-H, et al.Preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Bone Joint J2024; 106-B: 1118–1124.
23.
PasqualiniITanoiraIHurleyET, et al.Establishing the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state thresholds following arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of idiopathic shoulder adhesive capsulitis. Arthroscopy2024; 40: 1081–1088.
24.
SimovitchRWElwellJColasantiCA, et al.Stratification of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after total shoulder arthroplasty by implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2024; 33: e492–e506.
25.
HwangSTArdebolJGhayyadK, et al.Quantifying threshold scores for patient satisfaction after massive rotator cuff repair for the interpretation of mid-term patient-reported outcomes. Arthroscopy2024; 40: 204–213.
26.
MenendezMESudahSYCohnMR, et al.Defining minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state after the Latarjet procedure. Am J Sports Med2022; 50: 2761–2766.
27.
PasqualiniIRossiLAPanX, et al.High variability in standardized outcome thresholds of clinically important changes in shoulder instability surgery: a systematic review. Arthroscopy2025; 41: 2061–2071.e2.
28.
LeeACGuptaRKellyJD, et al.Variability of MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds in studies assessing patient-reported outcomes after rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med2024; 52: 2424–2432.
WrightMDella RoccaGJ. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline summary on the treatment of clavicle fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2023; 31: 977–983.
31.
MitchellBCEllisHWilsonP, et al.An evidence-based approach to managing adolescent (ages 10 to 19 years) diaphyseal clavicle fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2024; 32: e156–e165.
32.
PatelMHeyworthBEDehghanN, et al.Clavicular fractures in the adolescent. J Bone Joint Surg2023; 105: 713–723.
33.
AtlasAMModicaAGeffkenS, et al.Trends in shoulder arthroplasty across a large health system over the past 10 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2025; 34: e955–e964.
34.
LinDJWongTTKazamJK. Shoulder arthroplasty, from indications to complications: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiographics2016; 36: 192–208.
35.
WeaverJOmarIChadwickN, et al.Update on shoulder arthroplasties with emphasis on imaging. J Clin Med2023; 12: 2946.
36.
JainNBKhazzamMS. Degenerative rotator-cuff disorders. N Engl J Med2024; 391: 2027–2034.
37.
ChoCBaeKKimD. Patients who have undergone rotator cuff repair experience around 75% functional recovery at 6 months after surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2021; 29: 2220–2227.
38.
MallNATanakaMJChoiLS, et al.Factors affecting rotator cuff healing. J Bone Joint Surg2014; 96: 778–788.
39.
GeorgeDMMcKayBPJaarsmaRL. The long-term outcome of displaced mid-third clavicle fractures on scapular and shoulder function: variations between immediate surgery, delayed surgery, and nonsurgical management. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24: 669–676.
40.
KluijfhoutWPTutuhatunewaEDVan OldenGDJ. Plate fixation of clavicle fractures: comparison between early and delayed surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: 266–272.
41.
SubramanyamKNMundargiAVGopakumarKU, et al.Displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adults – is non-operative management enough?Injury2021; 52: 493–500.
42.
NaporaJKGrimbergDCChildsBR, et al.Results and outcomes after midshaft clavicle fracture: matched pair analysis of operative versus nonoperative management. Orthopedics2018; 41: e689–e694.
43.
VirtanenKJMalmivaaraAOVRemesVM, et al.Operative and nonoperative treatment of clavicle fractures in adults: a systematic review of 1,190 patients from the literature. Acta Orthop2012; 83: 65–73.
44.
FurtadoRMacDermidJC. Evaluating the content validity of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) in shoulder pathologies. J Hand Ther2023; 36: 713–718.
45.
CroninKJMagnusonJAMurphyML, et al.Responsiveness of patient-reported outcomes in shoulder arthroplasty: what are we actually measuring?J Shoulder Elbow Surg2021; 30: 1174–1180.
46.
SciasciaADMorrisBJJacobsCA, et al.Responsiveness and internal validity of common patient-reported outcome measures following total shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopedics2017; 40: e513–e519.
47.
AbedVKappSNicholsM, et al.ASES and UCLA are responsive patient-reported outcome measures after rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med2024; 52: 3173–3178.
48.
KhanAZVaughanAKAmanZS, et al.Reaching minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient-acceptable symptomatic state for patient-reported outcome measures following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair does not correlate with patient satisfaction. J Clin Med2024; 13: 2550.
