Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the clavicle is a common procedure that has been shown to have improved outcomes over nonoperative treatment. Several incisions can be used to approach clavicle fractures, the decision of which is variable among surgeons. PURPOSE: To compare patient satisfaction and subjective outcomes between patients with a longitudinal incision versus those with a necklace incision for the treatment of diaphyseal clavicle fractures. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with a diaphyseal clavicle fracture (Orthopaedic Trauma Association type 15-B) were treated by 1 of 7 orthopaedic surgeons. The intervention was ORIF with anatomic contoured plates. Patients were divided into a necklace incision group and a longitudinal incision group depending on the surgical approach used. Medical records were reviewed, and participants completed an online survey with questions related to pain, numbness, scar appearance, and satisfaction. Function was assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. Statistical significance was determined with P < .05. RESULTS: There were 16 patients in the necklace incision group and 20 in the longitudinal incision group. Patients in the necklace incision group were significantly more satisfied with the appearance of their scars (P = .01), which correlated with overall satisfaction (P = .05). There were no differences in overall satisfaction, pain, numbness, or reoperation rates for hardware removal between the necklace (6%) and longitudinal groups (15%). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing clavicle ORIF with a necklace incision are more satisfied with their scar appearance than those with a longitudinal incision. The overall satisfaction, rate of numbness, and plate removal were similar in both groups.