BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the results of the single (STR) versus double TightRope™ (DTR) technique for stabilisation of acute separations of the AC joint with the hypothesis that DTR achieves lower CC distance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 29 consecutive patients treated operatively with the TR technique (mean age 38.1 years, n=26 male) were analysed in a cohort study with a mean follow-up of 13.3 months (12.0-21.7). Acute AC joint separations types III and V according to Rockwood (R) were included; R types I, II, IV and VI were excluded. The prospective scores determined pre-op and 3, 6 and 12 months post-op and X-rays were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the patients 12 suffered an R type III and 17 an R V separation; 14 were treated with STR and 15 with DTR. With STR, 8 R III and 6 R V injuries and with DTR 4 R III and 11 R V injuries were treated arthroscopically. STR achieved an increased CC distance >125% compared to the contralateral AC joint in five cases (36%). Two of them occurred as R V and three as R III injury. DTR achieved a CC distance >125% in two cases of an R V injury (13%). CONCLUSION: The DTR technique provides lower CC distance compared to the STR technique, without a significant difference of CC distance and scores.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the results of the single (STR) versus double TightRope™ (DTR) technique for stabilisation of acute separations of the AC joint with the hypothesis that DTR achieves lower CC distance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 29 consecutive patients treated operatively with the TR technique (mean age 38.1 years, n=26 male) were analysed in a cohort study with a mean follow-up of 13.3 months (12.0-21.7). Acute AC joint separations types III and V according to Rockwood (R) were included; R types I, II, IV and VI were excluded. The prospective scores determined pre-op and 3, 6 and 12 months post-op and X-rays were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the patients 12 suffered an R type III and 17 an R V separation; 14 were treated with STR and 15 with DTR. With STR, 8 R III and 6 R V injuries and with DTR 4 R III and 11 R V injuries were treated arthroscopically. STR achieved an increased CC distance >125% compared to the contralateral AC joint in five cases (36%). Two of them occurred as R V and three as R III injury. DTR achieved a CC distance >125% in two cases of an R V injury (13%). CONCLUSION: The DTR technique provides lower CC distance compared to the STR technique, without a significant difference of CC distance and scores.
Authors: Mathias Wellmann; Thore Zantop; Andre Weimann; Michael J Raschke; Wolf Petersen Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Lukas Weiser; Jakob V Nüchtern; Kay Sellenschloh; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Johannes M Rueger; Michael Hoffmann; Wolfgang Lehmann; Lars G Großterlinden Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-12-19 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Gunnar Jensen; Jan Christoph Katthagen; Laura Esther Alvarado; Helmut Lill; Christine Voigt Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-11-04 Impact factor: 4.342
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
Authors: Klemens Horst; Thomas Dienstknecht; Miguel Pishnamaz; Richard Martin Sellei; Philipp Kobbe; Hans-Christoph Pape Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2013-05-30