Infraclavicular Thoracic Outlet Decompression Compared to Supraclavicular Thoracic Outlet Decompression for the Management of Venous Thoracic Outlet Syndrome

Background: The treatment of venous thoracic outlet syndrome (VTOS) requires surgical decompression often combined with catheter-directed thrombolysis and venoplasty. Surgical options include transaxillary, supraclavicular, or infraclavicular approaches to first rib resection. The optimal method, however, has yet to be defined. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent infraclavicular versus supraclavicular surgical decompression for VTOS. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent surgical management for VTOS from December 2010 to November 2017 was performed. During the study period, supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches were chosen according to surgeon preference. Patient demographics, pre- and postdecompression interventions, perioperative outcomes for each group of patients were analyzed. Results: Thirty patients underwent surgical management of VTOS, of which 15 (50%) underwent infraclavicular decompression and 15 (50%) supraclavicular decompression. The mean age of patients was 32.1 ± 13.6 years and 80% were male. Twenty-six patients (86.7%) presented with thrombotic VTOS. Acute axillosubclavian vein thrombosis was present in 20 (76.9%) of these patients, 10 patients in each group. Subacute or chronic thrombosis was encountered in the remaining 6 (23%) patients, 2 patients in the infraclavicular group and 4 patients in the supraclavicular group. Preoperative thrombolysis was utilized in 7 (46.7%) and 6 (40%) patients in the infraclavicular and supraclavicular groups, respectively (P = 1.00). Patients without postdecompression venography were removed from analysis and included 1 patient in the infraclavicular group and 5 patients in the supraclavicular group. Initial postdecompression venogram, prior to any endovascular intervention, demonstrated a residual axillosubclavian vein stenosis of greater than 50% in 6 (42.9%) patients in the infraclavicular decompression group and 7 (70%) patients in the supraclavicular decompression group (P = 0.24). Crossing the stenosis after surgical decompression was more easily accomplished in the infraclavicular group, 14 (100%) versus 5 (50%), (P = 0.01). Following endovascular venoplasty, calculated residual stenosis greater than 50% was found in 0 (0%) and 3 (30%) patients in the infraclavicular and supraclavicular approaches, respectively (P = 0.047). Infraclavicular thoracic outlet decompression was associated with fewer patients with postoperative symptoms, 0 of 15 (0%) versus 8 of 15 (53.3%), (P = 0.0022), and infraclavicular thoracic outlet decompression demonstrated improved patency, 15 of 15 (100%) versus 8 of 15 (53.3%), (P = 0.028) at a mean combined follow-up of 8.47 ± 10.8 months. Conclusions: Infraclavicular thoracic outlet decompression for the surgical management of VTOS was associated with fewer postoperative symptoms and improved axillosubclavian vein patency compared to the supraclavicular approach. Prospective analysis is warranted to determine long-term outcomes following infraclavicular decompression.