Upper Extremity and Junctional Zone Injuries


Epidemiology of Upper Extremity Vascular Injury

Reports from civilian and military settings have shown the distribution and outcomes of major vascular injuries going as far back as the Civil War ( Table 21.1 ). Although some publications comment on and provide details related to vascular injury in the upper extremity, it is often difficult to discern specific epidemiology and outcomes of upper extremity vascular injuries. An exception to this would be the contemporary epidemiologic characterization of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following implementation of a modern trauma system registry, detailed analysis of vascular injury is now feasible. As a consequence, patterns concerning upper extremity vascular injury can be observed across available studies, and several general comments pertaining to the characterization of upper extremity vascular injury and subsequent outcomes can be made.

Table 21.1
Select Civilian and Military Series Reporting Upper Extremity Arterial Injuries.
Series Setting Year Penetrating: Blunt Number of Injured Arteries (UE:LE) Injured Artery Distribution Operative Repair Technique Associated Injuries Outcomes
Subclavian Axillary Brachial Radial Ulnar Primary AVAG/P Prosthetic Ligation Nerve Bone Vein Series Limb Loss Series Mortality
Graham et al. Civilian 1955–78 93%:8% 93 93 NR NR NR 33 8 17 0 18 (19%) 17 (18%) 38 (40%) NR 12 (13%)
Mattox et al. Civilian 1958–88 NR 859:4901 c 168 143 446 261 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Hardin et al. Civilian 1967–79 84%:16% 100 NR 21 43 36 69 19 0 19 46 (46%) 6 (6%) 14 (14%) 2 (2%) NR
Fitridge et al. Civilian 1969–91 55%:45% 114 16 12 62 24 39 45 1 14 47 (41%) 35 (30%) NR 9 (7%) 3 (2%)
Graham et al. Civilian 1970–80 95%:5% 85 b 9 51 13 NR 20 13 18 0 23 (35%) NR 20 (30%) 1 (1%) 2 (3%) b
Humphrey et al. Civilian 1970–90 59%:41% c 115:56 3 9 30 36 37 126 c 40 c 15 c 47 c 63 (29%) c 70 (32%) c NR 26 (11.4%) c 10 (4.8%) c
Pasch et al. Civilian 1979–84 100%:0% a 48:91 NR 15 33 NR 14 34 0 0 38% d NR 62 (45%) a 1 (0.7%) a 0 a
Costa et al. Civilian 1981–87 0%:100% 15 15 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 (53%) 12 (80%) NR 2 (13%) 1 (7%)
Shaw et al. Civilian 1983–92 78%:12% 43 15 28 NR NR NR NR NR 13 (30%) 3 (6%) NR 3 (10%) NR
Lin et al. Civilian 1991–2001 100%:0% 54 54 NR NR NR 38 10 3 3 17 (31%) NR 23 (44%) NR 39%
Demetriades et al. Civilian 1993–97 100%:0% 79 b 59 NR NR 19 18 22 0 26 (32%) NR 20 (25%) NR 27 (34%) b
Brown et al. Civilian 1992–98 70%:30% 64 6 13 26 5 6 27 32 6 6 12 (19%) 8 (13%) 20 (31%) 4 (5%) 2 (3%)
Menakruru at al. Civilian 1996–2002 16%:84% a 67:63 6 4 38 11 8 103 a 32 a 4 a NR 16 (10%) a 90 (60%) a 13 (9%) a 9 (6%) 12 (8%)
Zellweger et al. Civilian 1999–2002 97%:3% 124 NR NR 124 NR 47 73 2 2 77 (62%) 17 (14%) 12 (10%) NR NR
Shanmugam et al. Civilian 2000–02 55%:44% 27 0 2 13 7 5 5 12 2 6 6 (22%) 10 (37%) 10 (37%) 1 (3%) 0
Dragas et al. Civilian/Military 1992–2006 77%:23% 189 3 41 104 40 57 99 2 6 91 (55%) 45 (27%) 62 (37%) 10 (6%) 4 (2.4)%
Peck et al. Civilian 2004–06 88%:3% a 40:150 NR 4 25 11 4 25 2 9 NR NR 15 (38%) 4 (3%) a 2 (1.5%) a
DeBakey et al. Military WWII NR 864:1607 21 74 601 99 69 81 a 40 a 14 a 1639 a NR NR NR 214 (24%) d NR
Hughes Military KW NR 112:192 3 20 89 NR 77 20 0 15 NR NR 192 (63%) a 13% a NR
Rich et al. Military 1965–68 95%:1.1% a 350:650 8 59 283 NR 464 a 462 a 4 a 15 a 424 (42%) a 285 (29%) a 377 (38%) a 19 (2%) d 17 (1.7%) a
Clouse et al. Military 2004–05 85%:15% 43 10 25 23 7 26 2 1 38 (88%) 10 (23%) 5 (11%) 4 (9.3%) NR
Clouse et al. Military 2004–06 94%:6% a 76:225 11 42 23 15 a 47 a 1 a 13 a NR NR NR 7 (8.5%) a 14 (4.3%) a
AVAG/P , Autologous vein or artery graft or patch angioplasty; KW , Korean war; LE , lower extremity; NR , not reported; UE , upper extremity.

a Data combines upper and lower extremity artery injury data.

b Data combines upper extremity artery and venous injury data.

c Data combines all cardiovascular injuries.

d Data is for upper extremity artery injury only.

Upper extremity vascular trauma is less common than that in the lower extremity, in both military and civilian environments. Historically, upper extremity vascular injury accounts for approximately 30% of all vascular injuries. In several of the most recent civilian series, as well as in the Balad Vascular Registry (BVR) and Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR), upper extremity arterial injury constitutes 30% to 40% of extremity arterial trauma. Penetrating mechanisms of injury are more common than blunt mechanisms, especially in the military setting. However, in civilian series, blunt mechanisms are associated with a higher morbidity and mortality compared to penetrating injury. This is mostly attributable to the effects of concomitant injuries. Interestingly, recent epidemiologic data has demonstrated a transition with respect to the most commonly injured vessels in the upper extremity. Previously, the brachial artery was reported as the vessel with the most significant incidence of trauma; however, distal or forearm vessels are now the most common injury identified. The next most commonly injured are the brachial vessels, whereas the axillary and subclavian arteries in the junctional zone are the least frequently injured vessels of the upper extremity. With respect to types of repair, primary, patch angioplasty, and autologous vein interposition grafting are the most common techniques used to manage vascular injuries in the arm.

The incidence of amputation associated with upper extremity arterial injury ranges from 1% to 28% with more recent reports demonstrating a rate of approximately 10%. It has been suggested that in modern military settings, the rate of early limb loss with upper extremity vascular injury may be more pronounced than in the lower extremity. Multimechanistic etiology with blast, penetration, and burn are common. This, along with the smaller surface area and soft tissue structure of the arm, may lead to difficulties with revascularization and soft tissue coverage. Mortality associated with upper extremity vascular trauma is rare but not negligible, ranging from 0% to 34% and mostly attributable to concomitant head and torso injuries.

Addressing Complex Upper Extremity Vascular Injury

General Considerations

Unpredictable arterial injury patterns require that surgeons be able to apply a diverse armamentarium of techniques. Efficient application requires foresight of potential intraoperative and postoperative issues during the diagnostic and assessments stage. Failure to correctly prepare can prolong operative time and result in suboptimal outcomes. Intravenous access should be obtained in another uninjured extremity, and central venous access may be helpful. As detailed in previous chapters of this text, attention to resuscitation must be diligent.

Orthopedic and soft-tissue injuries often occur in tandem with upper extremity vascular injuries. This is especially germane in combat scenarios given the frequency of high-energy weaponry and improvised explosive devices. When faced with arterial injury in conjunction with bone and/or nerve injuries, several concepts should be reviewed. Orthopedic long bong injuries should be brought to length with temporary fixation before definitive vascular repair. In most instances, when vascular and orthopedic injuries occur together, wound concerns require external fixation of the fracture with permanent internal fixation kept as an option, if needed, once other aspects of injury are optimized. Temporary vascular shunts should be considered as a way to quickly restore perfusion to the extremity before placement of external fixation devices. This strategy or sequence allows for expedited perfusion to the extremity, a more thoughtful and well-done fixation, and an easier platform for definitive arterial and/or venous reconstruction.

Débridement of devitalized tissue should be performed and, in some scenarios, primary amputation should be considered. In our experience, routing of vascular bypass grafts through deep anatomic planes is possible in the majority of cases. In instances where cavitary soft-tissue defects exist, extraanatomic routes may be needed and deep intermuscular or subcutaneous planes can be used depending on which path provides the best route for protecting the graft. Consideration must be given to primary repair of concomitant nerve injuries versus tagging the nerve ends for delayed neurorrhaphy once the wound has been stabilized. As described in the following sections of this chapter, repair of venous injury may improve limb outcomes and should be entertained particularly with axillosubclavian injuries and in the absence of other life-threatening injuries. We give serious consideration to reconstruction of at least one vein in the upper arm when brachial, cephalic, and basilic veins have been disrupted ( Fig. 21.1 ). The brachial or basilic veins are favored for reconstruction because they lie within the exposure field required to manage the arterial injury and are more easily covered with tissue.

Fig. 21.1, View from the patient's head. A high-energy gunshot injury to the left inner arm resulted in a “blowout” injury at the bullet exit site. A greater saphenous vein (GSV) brachial artery to radial artery bypass was performed to address the brachial artery injury, and a GSV interposition graft was used to repair the basilic vein injury. Fasciotomy was performed. Arrows indicate cavitation injury, brachioradial GSV bypass, basilic vein interposition, and median nerve. (A) Cavitation injury. (B) Brachioradial GSV bypass. (C) Basilic vein. (D) Median nerve.

Tourniquets in Upper Extremity Vascular Injury

The use of tourniquets in the modern civilian trauma setting has not been systematically endorsed, but the effectiveness of tourniquets has been demonstrated in the combat environment. Early application of tourniquets in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) has proven effective and life-saving in patients with extremity injuries. In 2009, Kragh et al. reported that application of a tourniquet in the absence of shock in a prehospital setting had a survival advantage as compared with application of the tourniquet in the emergency department (ED) after the patient had developed shock (90% vs. 10%; P < .001). A small percentage (1.7%) of patients experienced nerve palsy at the application level, but no amputations resulted from tourniquet use.

In another study by the Israeli Defense Forces, the use of combat tourniquets was evaluated over 4 years. In all, 110 tourniquets were applied for extremity injury, of which 34 were used to treat upper limb trauma. In that study, 94% of upper limb injuries were controlled by tourniquet, as compared to only 74% of lower extremity injuries. Neurologic complications developed in seven limbs and four of these involved nerve palsies of the upper extremity. Injuries distal to the axillary artery are most amenable to control by tourniquet. Designs include windlass tourniquets, such as the Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT) and the Special Operations Forces Tactical Tourniquet (SOFTT), both of which are commonly issued to combat troops. The Emergency and Military Tourniquet (EMT) has a pneumatic compression design. One study of volunteers who self-applied the CAT, SOFTT, or EMT found each design to consistently interrupt distal perfusion as assessed by Doppler.

Historically, there had been apprehension about the use of tourniquets in the prehospital setting. However, more recent studies, largely propelled from modern combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, have shown tourniquets to be an important means of preventing extremity hemorrhage death. It is difficult to generalize this data to settings outside of military systems which, through extensive training efforts and rapid medical transport, have created circumstances that lend themselves to successful tourniquet use. Thus, although it may be premature for widespread use of tourniquets in the civilian setting, some upper extremity vascular injuries would surely benefit from their use as long as they are removed as soon as possible.

Considerations for Management of Upper Extremity Vascular Trauma

  • 1.

    Tourniquets for hemorrhage control, temporary shunts for early restoration of perfusion, and low threshold for fasciotomy when facing delayed repair or complex upper extremity injuries.

  • 2.

    Prepare and drape the patient to allow for appropriate proximal and distal control of the injury, as well as harvesting of autologous conduit such as saphenous vein.

  • 3.

    Exposure in the upper extremity junctional zone is difficult. Be prepared for sternotomy and thoracotomy.

  • 4.

    Long bong fractures should be brought to length before vascular repair. (Consider immediate vascular shunt placement followed by placement of fixation devices.)

  • 5.

    Liberal use of interposition grafting and patching avoids arterial narrowing that often results from primary repair.

  • 6.

    Prosthetic conduit is an acceptable option in upper extremity junctional zone injuries where size match is important and where infectious complications are less common than in the groin.

  • 7.

    Repair of venous injury may improve limb outcomes and should be entertained, particularly in the proximal upper extremity or junctional zone.

  • 8.

    Endovascular repair of upper extremity vascular injury is now possible with reasonably good early results, particularly in proximal or central injuries.

  • 9.

    Liberal use of Duplex ultrasound as a means to surveille the repair is recommended.

  • 10.

    Elevation of the extremity, early rehabilitation, and antithrombotic therapy are important in the postoperative care after revascularization for upper extremity trauma.

Temporary Vascular Shunts in Upper Extremity Vascular Injury

Traditionally, the operative strategy for extremity vascular injury was guided by the dictum “life over limb.” In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, experience with damage control resuscitation and damage control surgery have shown that in many instances of mangled extremity it is possible to save both life and limb. An understanding of damage control adjuncts such as temporary vascular shunts and a methodical evaluation of complex extremity injuries can assist in minimizing morbidity and mortality while attempting to maximize functional outcomes in these scenarios.

Temporary shunts can allow for rapid restoration of distal arm perfusion when immediate vascular reconstruction is not possible ( Fig. 21.2 ). Delays in vascular repair may result from a need for fixation of an associated fracture, débridement of a soft tissue wound, or even harvesting and preparing vein conduit. Vascular injury repair may also need to be postponed while more serious, life-threatening injuries are managed. Finally, if there is not time or the clinical expertise at the initial operation, delayed repair of the injury may be necessary. In any of these cases, and as discussed in a dedicated chapter of this textbook, placement of a temporary vascular shunt may be indicated as a means to restore perfusion and buy time until formal repair can be accomplished.

Fig. 21.2, Brachial artery temporary vascular shunt used to maintain distal perfusion while orthopedic fixation was performed to bring the humerus to length.

Mangled Extremity Scores in Upper Extremity Vascular Trauma

A mangled extremity is defined as an injury involving soft tissue, bone, nerve, and vasculature. Determining which patients and mangled upper extremities will benefit from aggressive attempts at limb salvage and which would be better served with primary amputation is challenging. Exhaustive efforts at limb salvage in severely injured patients may result in misdirection of care, whereas premature extremity amputation may preclude optimal functional outcome.

Scoring systems have been developed to take into consideration concomitant injuries, as well as the degree and nature of the bony, soft tissue, the nerve features, and the vessel features of extremity injury. These systems are designed to assist in decision-making during the early phases of mangled limb management and to provide a mechanism to do comparative retrospective studies of extremity injury. These systems could theoretically discern between those extremities in which salvage will be successful and those in which up-front amputation is most appropriate. The use of scoring systems, such as the Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS) ( Table 21.2 ), Mangled Extremity Syndrome Index (MESI) ( Table 21.3 ), Predictive Salvage Index (PSI), and Limb Salvage Index (LSI), has been evaluated and each system’s ability to predict limb-salvage and functional outcome assessed. Only the MESI was proposed to evaluate mangled upper extremities, but the MESS has also been retrospectively applied to upper extremity injuries.

Table 21.2
Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS).
Adapted from Johansen, et al. Objective criteria accurately predict amputation following lower extremity trauma. J Trauma . 1990;30:568–572, discussion 72–73.
Variable Injury Assessment Points
Skeletal Low energy (stab; simple fracture; civilian GSW) 1
Medium energy (open or multiple fractures, dislocation) 2
High energy (close-range shotgun or military GSW; crush injury) 3
Very high energy (above + gross contamination; soft-tissue avulsion) 4
Limb ischemia Pulse reduced or absent but perfusion intact 1 a
Pulseless; paresthesias; diminished capillary refill 2 a
Cool; paralyzed; insensate; numb 3 a
Shock SBP always >90 mm Hg 0
Transient hypotension 1
Persistent hypotension 2
Age (years) <30 0
30–50 1
>50 2
GSW , Gunshot wound; SBP , systolic blood pressure.

a Score doubled for ischemia time >6 hours.

Table 21.3
Mangled Extremity Syndrome Index (MESI).
Variable Injury Assessment Points
Injury severity score 0–25 1
25–50 2
>50 3
Integument Guillotine 1
Crush/burn 2
Avulsion/degloving 3
Nerve Contusion 1
Transection 2
Avulsion 3
Vascular Artery transection 1
Artery thrombosed 2
Artery avulsed 3
Venous injury 1
Bone Simple fracture 1
Segmental fracture 2
Segmental-comminuted fracture 3
Segmental-comminuted with bone loss <6 cm 4
Segmental fracture intra-extra articular 5
Segmental fracture intra-extra articular with bone loss >6 cm 6
Bone loss >6 cm Add 1
Lag time 1 point for every hour >6 hours
Age 40–50 1
50–60 2
60–70 3
Preexisting disease 1
Shock Systolic blood pressure <90 2

The most robust validation studies of mangled extremity scores focused on the lower extremity, and caution is advised in applying the MESS to upper extremity injuries. However, the simplicity of determining the MESS (evaluation of four clinical variables—skeletal/soft-tissue injury, limb ischemia, shock, and age) has resulted in its use in assessing upper extremities for viability. Slauterbeck et al. reported on 43 upper extremity injuries, and found all 9 arms with a MESS of greater than or equal to 7 were primarily amputated, whereas a score of less than 7 resulted in successful limb salvage. Durham et al. also evaluated the application of limb-salvage scores for both upper and lower mangled extremities and concluded MESS and MESI both decently predicted upper limb salvage (MESI Sn = 100%, Sp = 67%, PPV = 90%, NPV = 100%; MESS Sn = 78%, Sp = 100%, PPV = 100%, NPV = 60%). Interestingly, the authors concluded that these scores did not accurately predict functional outcome, emphasizing that limb viability and limb function are related but not the same.

The application of MESS to combat-related upper extremity injury has been published from experiences during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a combination of 17 upper and 43 lower extremity injuries, Rush and colleagues suggested a MESS of 7 or greater predicted limb loss. In a propensity-adjusted, multivariate analysis of 64 shunted versus 61 matched, non-shunted arterial extremity injuries with nearly 2-year follow-up, Gifford confirmed the fidelity of the MESS. This case-control study included 35 upper extremity injuries and 90 lower extremity injuries. No difference in amputation-free survival was seen in extremities with MESS scores less than 4. However, graduated reductions in amputation-free survival were observed in patients with a MESS of 5 to 7 (relative risk [RR] 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–12.4; P = .06) and a MESS of 8 to 12 (RR 16.4; 95% CI 3.79–70.98; P < .001).

Collectively, we believe that mangled extremity scores serve as objective reminders of subjective clinical experience. They provide cues to the nuances leading to either limb salvage, or limb loss in severely injured extremities, and provide general guidelines. However, their clear and unquestioned use as indicators of whether an upper extremity should be primarily amputated remains to be proven, and the expertise and opinion of the evaluating surgical team remains most essential in the approach to management.

Surgical Management for Upper Extremity Vascular Injury

Although hemorrhage and ischemia are the key determinants indicating the need for intervention and repair, a deeper understanding of the presentation and diagnostic nuances of the different upper extremity arteries is necessary. This knowledge allows one to optimize decisions, including in situations where nonoperative management may be appropriate. Unstable patients should be taken to the operating room. Those with normal vital signs and no signs of bleeding may undergo further diagnostic imaging to better inform their treatment. Chest x-ray can reveal a fractured rib(s) or clavicle(s) and hemopneumothoraces, and provide information about the mediastinum. Bilateral arm pressures using continuous wave-Doppler (i.e., measurement of an injured extremity index) functions as an extension of the physical examination that allows diagnosis of arterial injury. In a hemodynamically stable patient, CT angiography (CTA) offers the opportunity to determine the location and nature of upper extremity injury and define concomitant non-vascular injuries, thereby optimizing operative planning. Duplex ultrasound can be helpful in diagnosis beyond the subclavian artery. Contrast arteriography is useful, particularly when catheter-based endovascular repair (e.g., stent-graft repair) is considered.

Subclavian Artery

Subclavian Artery Injuries

The relatively short extent of the subclavian vessels, along with their surrounding bony structures and musculature, makes injuries to these proximal upper extremity vessels rare. Although injury to the subclavian artery is more common in penetrating trauma, reports from military and civilian centers show the prevalence of subclavian artery injuries to range from 1% to 10%. Subclavian vascular injury should be considered when the bony structures of the thoracic outlet, such as the first rib or the clavicle are fractured. Subclavian artery injury may not present with critical ischemia given the ample collateral circulation around the shoulder. Absence of a distal pulse in an upper extremity, reduction in the injured extremity index (less than 0.9), or the presence of hemodynamic collapse with apparent mechanism should be considered highly suspicious for occult subclavian artery injury. In fact, many patients with a subclavian artery injury will present in shock. Hemopneumothorax is common. Other signs can include supraclavicular and low cervical swelling or tracheal compression from a hematoma. Concomitant injuries to the cervical or thoracic spine may be present, and brachial plexus injuries along with associated venous injury will commonly be present. Meticulous assessment for these injuries should be performed as soon as the patient's status permits.

Anatomy of the Junctional Zone and Subclavian Artery

The junctional zone of the upper extremity is composed of the thoracic aperture and shoulder. The articulations between the first rib, the sternum, and spinal column create the bony boundaries of the thoracic outlet. The clavicle connects to the manubrium anterior to the first rib, and these anatomic relationships make direct access to the vasculature, including the subclavian vessels and their branches, challenging. The musculature surrounding the thoracic outlet can be best visualized as an inverted cone with the anterior and posterior scalenes attaching to the first and second ribs, respectively, the sternothyroid; the sternohyoid attaching to the sternum; and the sternocleidomastoid attaching to the medial clavicle and sternum. Although the complexity of the anatomy in this area creates a protective cage for the underlying vessels and nerves, obtaining proximal control in rushed situations can easily result in inadvertent damage to critical structures.

The major arterial structure of the thoracic outlet is the subclavian artery ( Fig. 21.3 ). The right subclavian originates from the innominate artery posterior to the costoclavicular joint, and the left subclavian artery originates from the aortic arch at roughly the level of the 4th left interspace. The subclavian artery is divided into three sections based on the relationship to the anterior scalene and the branches provide collateral pathways around the shoulder ( Fig. 21.4 ). The first portion is proximal to the muscle and its branches include the vertebral artery, the thyrocervical trunk, and the internal thoracic artery. The phrenic and vagus nerves cross anterior to the artery, and the internal jugular and subclavian vein join anterior to the nerves. On the left, the thoracic duct courses across the proximal subclavian artery and drains into the junction of the left internal jugular and left subclavian vein. The mid portion of the subclavian artery is posterior to the anterior scalene, abuts the brachial plexus trunks located posteriorly and superiorly to the artery, and gives off the dorsalscapular branch. The third portion is located lateral to the anterior scalene and remains in close proximity to the brachial plexus as the cords form from the trunks. These cords are intimately associated with the third part of the subclavian artery, which does not have side branches.

Fig. 21.3, (A) Anterior view of the thoracic outlets. (B) Angiogram of the left subclavian artery with branches.

Fig. 21.4, Angiogram demonstrating collateral circulation in the shoulder. The important collateral vessels are the thoracoacromial, the lateral thoracic, the subscapular, and the anterior and posterior humeral circumflex arteries.

Operative Management of Junctional Zone and Subclavian Artery

The proximal portion of the right subclavian artery can be exposed via a median sternotomy. Further exposure may require a supraclavicular extension of the incision, with or without resection of the clavicular head. The origin of the left subclavian artery is in a more posterior location on the aortic arch and must be exposed through a high, left anterolateral thoracotomy ( Fig. 21.5 ). The mid to distal left subclavian artery may be controllable through a median sternotomy with a supraclavicular or cervical extension or via “trapdoor” thoracotomy. When the goal is to expose the mid-portion of the artery, a combined supraclavicular and infraclavicular (two-incision) technique has been described, but in the authors' experience a single-incision approach with subperiosteal clavicular resection (with or without simultaneous reconstruction of the clavicle) seems most expeditious and flexible. A distal left subclavian and proximal axillary vessel injury can be exposed by a separate supraclavicular incision. Alternatively, the clavicle can be resected in a subperiosteal fashion to expose the subclavian vessels. The distal subclavian artery and proximal axillary artery is potentially treatable from a two-incision approach, but injury management may require a lateral clavicular resection, again with or without bony replacement.

Fig. 21.5, Surgical exposure of the junctional zone vessels can be obtained by supraclavicular and infraclavicular incisions, by left anterolateral thoracotomy, and by median sternotomy.

Dissection in the area of the subclavian artery and vein should be performed with care given the abundance of adjacent nerve structures ( Fig. 21.6 ). In addition to the brachial plexus and vagus, the phrenic nerve sits on the anterior scalene muscle and should be identified and preserved. The abundance of collaterals around the shoulder and neck may allow for ligation of the subclavian artery in emergency situations with modest upper extremity ischemia. Temporary shunting, however, may be considered and, in the authors' opinions, provides a better alternative to ligation. Tension-free repair of the subclavian artery cannot be overemphasized as the vessel is relatively thin, nonmuscular, and delicate. Because of this, primary repair and patch angioplasty is challenging. If these are entertained, use of pledgets is recommended. Prosthetic material can be used as an interposition graft for larger, more proximal great vessel and upper extremity reconstructions. Autologous conduit such as saphenous vein, paneled saphenous vein, internal jugular vein, or even femoral vein can be used depending on size and length considerations. The choice is dependent on patient condition and associated soft-tissue injury. In more extensive injuries, ligation and revascularization using bypass with inflow based more proximally, such as from the ascending aorta, the innominate artery, or the carotid systems, may be options.

Fig. 21.6, (A) A gunshot wound sustained to the left sternoclavicular region is shown. (B) A view from the patient's head. A supraclavicular incision was performed, and a subclavian artery and vein injury were identified. A subclavian artery greater saphenous vein (GSV) interposition graft was performed, as well as a subclavian vein to internal jugular GSV bypass. (C) The complexity of the anatomy in the area of the subclavian artery and vein necessitates meticulous dissection during operative exposure.

Operative Technique

In order to accomplish proximal surgical control of the left subclavian, an anterolateral thoracotomy is completed. Position the patient supine and place shoulder roll. Create a transverse, curvilinear incision over the left 5th rib from the lateral border of the sternum to the anterior axillary line (just below the breast in a female patient, along the lower contour of the pectoralis major muscle in a male patient). Divide the pectoralis fascia and muscle fibers at the 4th intercostal space, then the intercostal muscles. Enter the 4th intercostal space at the cranial aspect of the 5th rib and incise the parietal pleura. At this point, place a rib spreader retractor (i.e., Fianchetto rib retractor). Retract superiorly below the left lung caudally and visualize the aortic arch, then divide the mediastinal pleura overlying the arch and descending thoracic aorta. Identify the proximal origin of the left subclavian artery. Of note, avoid injury to the left vagus and recurrent laryngeal nerves at this location. Achieve proximal control of the left subclavian artery.

The supraclavicular approach to the subclavian provides exposure to the mid and distal portions of the artery. The surgeon should consider that this approach is more time-consuming and subjects critical nerve structures to risk. Position the patient supine and place shoulder roll. Create a transverse, supraclavicular incision approximately one fingerbreadth cranial to the clavicle with the medial extent originating at the medial aspect of the clavicular head of the sternocleidomastoid muscle. Divide the clavicular head of the sternocleidomastoid and expose the scalene fat pad. Identify and protect the phrenic nerve which is located at the anterior aspect of the anterior scalene muscle. Mobilize the scalene fat pad cephalolaterally. Complete a phrenic neurolysis to increase nerve mobility and facilitate division of the anterior scalene muscle. Divide (resect if required) the anterior scalene muscle and identify the underlying subclavian artery. Circumferentially, isolate the subclavian artery and achieve proximal and/or distal control. The thyrocervical trunk can be ligated if required.

The trapdoor thoracotomy provides excellent exposure to the left subclavian artery and is another option that surgeons should be familiar with. Perform an anterolateral thoracotomy as previously described. Next, control the proximal subclavian artery. Ligate the internal mammary/thoracic vessels and perform a supraclavicular approach as previously described. Then complete a vertical incision over the sternum to connect the medial borders of the anterolateral thoracotomy and supraclavicular incisions. Divide the exposed sternum via median sternotomy.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here