Comparison of the effectiveness of oblique and transverse incisions in the treatment of fractures of the middle and outer third of the clavicle.

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic supraclavicular nerve injury is frequent during surgical repair of clavicle fractures through a transverse incision. The use of an oblique incision may be a potential approach to avoiding this complication. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of oblique and transverse incisions in the treatment of fractures in the middle and outer thirds of the clavicle.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included patients with fracture of the mid-to-outer third of the clavicle between August 2011 and August 2016. We allocated the patients into 2 groups based on their choice of treatment: oblique incision (n = 62) and transverse incision (n = 64). We compared the following parameters between the 2 groups: operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative fracture healing time, incision size, clinical complications, postoperative subjective satisfaction, and shoulder function.

RESULTS

Operative time, postoperative fracture healing time, postoperative shoulder function (Constant-Murley and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand [DASH] scores), and clinical complications did not differ significantly between groups (all P > .05). The oblique incision group had less intraoperative blood loss (41.4 ± 16.4 vs. 65.3 ± 10.4 mL, P < .001) and smaller surgical incisions (3.6 ± 1.6 vs. 10.3 ± 2.6 cm, P < .001). The oblique incision group showed better outcomes for postoperative satisfaction (85.5% vs. 64.1%, P = .015), absence of shoulder numbness at the last follow-up (89.3% vs. 70.3%, P = .010), and satisfaction with the scar (90.3% vs. 3.1%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Oblique incisions have several advantages over transverse incisions: less bleeding, smaller incisions, less iatrogenic injury to supraclavicular nerves, and higher patient satisfaction. These 2 approaches have equivalent effects on recovery of shoulder joint function.