Literature DB >> 24164938

The comparison of Ethibond sutures and semitendinosus autograft in the surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation.

Mohsen Mardani-Kivi1, Ahmadreza Mirbolook, Mostafa Salariyeh, Keyvan Hashemi-Motlagh, Khashayar Saheb-Ekhtiari.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the results of the surgical reconstruction of the acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations using No. 5 Ethibond suture or semitendinosus autograft.
METHODS: This analytical cross-sectional study was conducted on the medical records of 39 patients (35 males and 4 females; mean age: 32.6±11.8 years), with complete ACJ joint dislocation (Type 3 to 6). Twenty one patients underwent reconstruction using No. 5 Ethibond suture (Group A) and 18 patients using semitendinosus tendon autograft (Group B). The patients' database records were queried for the information regarding the evaluations during follow-up period (mean: 25.7 months) such as radiographic evaluations, Constant score, VAS score and infection.
RESULTS: The mean Constant score was 91±1 and 92±2.1 in Groups A and B, respectively. There was a reduction of ACJ based on Zanca view in 15 patients in Group A and 12 patients in Group B. There was subluxation of ACJ by less than 25% in six patients in Group A and five in Group B, in that, the difference was not significant. Patients expressed acceptable satisfaction and equal pain severity in rest and daily activity in both groups. No deep infection has been observed.
CONCLUSION: Since both surgical techniques led to satisfactory results, reduction of ACJ, excellent functional score and acceptable patient satisfaction, No. 5 Ethibond suture technique could be recommended as the treatment of choice due to the absence of morbidity in removing semitendinosus autograft tendon.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24164938     DOI: 10.3944/aott.2013.3015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc        ISSN: 1017-995X            Impact factor:   1.511


  6 in total

Review 1.  Allo- and autografts show comparable outcomes in chronic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Martin Eigenschink; Philipp R Heuberer; Leo Pauzenberger; Grant E Garrigues; Leonard Achenbach; Sigbjorn Dimmen; Brenda Laky; Lior Laver
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction.

Authors:  Anthony J Scillia; E Lyle Cain
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2015-12-28

Review 3.  Shoulder acromioclavicular joint reconstruction options and outcomes.

Authors:  Simon Lee; Asheesh Bedi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-12

4.  Long-term stability of coracoclavicular suture fixation for acute acromioclavicular joint separation.

Authors:  A Panagopoulos; E Fandridis; G Delle Rose; R Ranieri; A Castagna; Z T Kokkalis; P Dimakopoulos
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 5.  Biologic and synthetic ligament reconstructions achieve better functional scores compared to osteosynthesis in the treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Authors:  Maristella F Saccomanno; Giuseppe Sircana; Valentina Cardona; Valeria Vismara; Alessandra Scaini; Andrea G Salvi; Stefano Galli; Giacomo Marchi; Giuseppe Milano
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Surgical treatment of type III acromioclavicular dislocation: Bosworth technique versus hook plating.

Authors:  Seyit Ali Gumustas; Fevzi Saglam; Baran Komur; Ahmet Guray Batmaz; Ismail Yukunc; Haci Bayram Tosun; Halil Ibrahim Bekler
Journal:  North Clin Istanb       Date:  2017-12-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.