Comparison of patient reported outcomes following clavicle operative fixation using supraclavicular nerve sparing and supraclavicular nerve sacrificing techniques- A cohort study.

INTRODUCTION

Supraclavicular nerve injury is one of the common complications after clavicle open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) affecting up to 55% of patients. There is debate about whether sparing supraclavicular nerves improves functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to compare numbness, patient-reported outcomes and surgical time in patients undergoing clavicle ORIF using supraclavicular nerve sparing and supraclavicular nerve sacrificing techniques.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study with prospective survey of 108 patients with clavicular fractures treated with ORIF at a level 1 trauma centre. Patients were divided into two groups: 1) ORIF with supraclavicular nerve sparing techniques and 2) ORIF with supraclavicular nerve sacrificing techniques. Questionnaires were conducted and subjective numbness around supraclavicular nerve distribution was our primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, a numeric rating scale for pain and satisfaction with treatment and surgical time.

RESULTS

An overall response rate of 92% was achieved with an average follow-up of 16 months. There were 20 patients in the supraclavicular nerve sparing group and 79 patients in the supraclavicular nerve sacrificing group. 76% of all patients experienced numbness post-operatively and 91% of these patients experienced persistent numbness at final follow-up. There was no significant difference between the groups for age, gender, time to follow-up and mechanism of injury. Patients in the supraclavicular nerve sparing group had significantly less numbness at final follow-up (35% vs 86%, P < 0.001; OR=0.21 95%CI 0.11-0.40). There was no significant difference in the QuickDASH score nor the NRS for pain and function. Sparing supraclavicular nerves did not result in a significantly longer operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that identification and protection of the supraclavicular nerves result in significantly less numbness following clavicle ORIF but does not affect patient reported functional outcomes.