Literature DB >> 21964578

Hook plate fixation for acromioclavicular joint separations restores coracoclavicular distance more accurately than PDS augmentation, however presents with a high rate of acromial osteolysis.

Anica Eschler1, Georg Gradl, Philip Gierer, Thomas Mittlmeier, Markus Beck.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Hook plate fixation of acromioclavicular (AC) joint separations carries the disadvantage of compulsory implant removal, occasional implant fatigue and secondary loss of reduction. This study compares the clinical and radiological outcome of a new polyaxial angular stable hook plate (HP) with absorbable polydioxansulfate (PDS) sling.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2002 and 2009, out of a consecutive series of 81 patients with symptomatic Rockwood type V lesions 52 patients received clinical and radiographic follow-up (HP: n = 27; PDS: n = 25). HP patients were prospectively analyzed and retrospectively compared with the PDS group. Radiological follow-up included comparative coraco- and acromioclavicular distance (CCD/ACD) measurements as percentage of the uninjured shoulder. For clinical follow-up a standardized functional shoulder assessment with Constant Score, DASH Score, Taft Score and a self-report questionnaire including the visual analog scale (VAS) was carried out.
RESULTS: Direct postoperative radiographs showed an overcorrection of CCD in the HP group (-4.4% of the uninjured side) and failure of anatomic correction in the PDS group (+11.0%). After implant removal, CCD increased in the HP group extensively to 16.7% (overall loss of reduction: 21.1%) and 23.9% in the PDS group. Redisplacement (100% increase of CCD) occurred in five cases (HP: 2, PDS: 3) and partial loss of reduction in four cases of each group. Comparing functional results no differences could be seen between both the groups (Constant-Score HP: 91.2 points, PDS: 94.6 points; Taft-Score HP: 9.4 points, PDS: 10.0 points). The DASH-Score revealed better results for PDS group (3.4 points, HP: 8.0 points). Signs of acromial osteolysis appeared in five cases (18.5%) in HP group. There was no case of implant failure. The X-rays of six patients (HP: 4, PDS: 2) showed AC-joint-osteoarthritis.
CONCLUSION: Hook plate fixation employing a polyaxial angular stable plate finally restores the coracoclavicular distance more accurately than augmentation with a PDS sling. Although in HP group no implant failure occurred, major disadvantages are initial overcorrection and acromial osteolysis. Both have no influence on final functional results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21964578     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-011-1399-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  24 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of surgical outcomes between fixation with hook plate and loop suspensory fixation for acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alisara Arirachakaran; Manusak Boonard; Peerapong Piyapittayanun; Vajarin Phiphobmongkol; Kornkit Chaijenkij; Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-06-22

2.  Clinical and radiological outcome of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint dislocation: A retrospective cohort study on Hook plate versus arthroscopic assisted single coracoclavicular tunnel with DogBone™ button dual FiberTape® construct.

Authors:  Sandesh Madi; Vivek Pandey; Sujayendra Murali; Kiran Acharya
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2022-03-04

3.  Morphological analysis of acromion and hook plate for the fixation of acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Authors:  Jong Pil Yoon; Yeon Soo Lee; Geun Soo Song; Joo Han Oh
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Surgical treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: hook plate versus minimally invasive reconstruction.

Authors:  S Metzlaff; S Rosslenbroich; P H Forkel; B Schliemann; H Arshad; M Raschke; W Petersen
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Early complications of acromioclavicular joint reconstruction requiring reoperation.

Authors:  Dean Wang; Benjamin E Bluth; Chad R Ishmael; Jeremiah R Cohen; Jeffrey C Wang; Frank A Petrigliano
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Comparison of results between hook plate fixation and ligament reconstruction for acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Authors:  Jong Pil Yoon; Byoung-Joo Lee; Sang Jin Nam; Seok Won Chung; Won-Ju Jeong; Woo-Kie Min; Joo Han Oh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2015-02-10

Review 7.  Post-operative outcomes and complications of suspensory loop fixation device versus hook plate in acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alisara Arirachakaran; Manusak Boonard; Peerapong Piyapittayanun; Wichan Kanchanatawan; Kornkit Chaijenkij; Akom Prommahachai; Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2017-02-25

8.  Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Hook Plate and Continuous Loop Double Endobutton Fixations in Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation.

Authors:  Hasan Taleb; Ahmadreza Afshar; Mohammad J Shariyate; Ali Tabrizi
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2019-11

9.  Operative treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint injuries graded Rockwood III and IV: risks and benefits in tight rope technique vs. k-wire fixation.

Authors:  Klemens Horst; Thomas Dienstknecht; Miguel Pishnamaz; Richard Martin Sellei; Philipp Kobbe; Hans-Christoph Pape
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2013-05-30

10.  Transarticular fixation by hook plate versus coracoclavicular stabilization by single multistrand titanium cable for acute Rockwood grade-V acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a case-control study.

Authors:  You-Shui Gao; Yue-Lei Zhang; Zi-Sheng Ai; Yu-Qiang Sun; Chang-Qing Zhang; Wei Zhang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.