Literature DB >> 24170189

Why does minimally invasive coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using a flip button repair technique fail? An analysis of risk factors and complications.

Benedikt Schliemann1, Steffen B Roßlenbroich, Kristian N Schneider, Christina Theisen, Wolf Petersen, Michael J Raschke, André Weimann.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Aim of the present study was to evaluate the risk factors for the failure of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using a flip button repair technique and to analyse complications related to this procedure.
METHODS: Seventy-one patients (3 female, 68 male) underwent surgical treatment using a flip button repair technique for an acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. The following factors and its impact on clinical and radiographic outcome were assessed: age at trauma, interval between trauma and surgery, degree of displacement (according to Rockwood's classification), coracoid button position, button migration and post-operative appearance of ossifications.
RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were available for follow-up. The overall Constant score was 95.2 points (range 61-100 points) compared to 97 points (range 73-100 points) for the contralateral side (p = 0.05). Nine patients (14.3 %) needed surgical revision. Inappropriate positioning of the coracoid bone tunnel with subsequent button dislocation was the most frequently observed mode of failure (6 cases, 9.5 %). Button migration into the clavicle was associated with loss of reduction (p = 0.02). The patient's age at the time of trauma had a significant impact on the clinical outcome, whereas younger patients achieved better results (p = 0.02). The interval between trauma and surgery did not significantly affect the outcome (n.s.).
CONCLUSION: Good to excellent clinical results can be achieved with the presented surgical technique. The age of the patient at trauma had a significant influence on the functional outcome. Furthermore, placement of the coracoid button centrally under the coracoid base is crucial to prevent failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24170189     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2737-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  20 in total

Review 1.  Complications of treatment of complete acromioclavicular joint dislocations.

Authors:  D Guttmann; N E Paksima; J D Zuckerman
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2000

2.  Minimally invasive coracoclavicular ligament augmentation with a flip button/polydioxanone repair for treatment of total acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Authors:  Mathias Wellmann; Thore Zantop; Wolf Petersen
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2007-03-19       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder.

Authors:  C R Constant; A H Murley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint. An end-result study.

Authors:  T N Taft; F C Wilson; J W Oglesby
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  [Surgical management of acromioclavicular joint separation with transcutaneous Kirschner wire fixation. Results of follow-up in 45 patients].

Authors:  A Hellmich; U Sievers
Journal:  Aktuelle Traumatol       Date:  1988-02

6.  Surgical outcome following arthroscopic fixation of acromioclavicular joint disruption with the tightrope device.

Authors:  Eric Thiel; Amar Mutnal; Gregory J Gilot
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2011-07-07       Impact factor: 1.390

7.  Early failures with single clavicular transosseous coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Jay B Cook; James S Shaha; Douglas J Rowles; Craig R Bottoni; Steven H Shaha; John M Tokish
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-04-21       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Arthroscopically assisted stabilization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations.

Authors:  Markus Scheibel; Silvia Dröschel; Christian Gerhardt; Natascha Kraus
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Arthroscopically assisted 2-bundle anatomic reduction of acute acromioclavicular joint separations: 58-month findings.

Authors:  Arne J Venjakob; Gian M Salzmann; Florian Gabel; Stefan Buchmann; Lars Walz; Jeffrey T Spang; Stephan Vogt; Andreas B Imhoff
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 6.202

10.  Acromioclavicular dislocation Rockwood III-V: results of early versus delayed surgical treatment.

Authors:  Olaf Rolf; Andreas Hann von Weyhern; Alexander Ewers; Thomas Dirk Boehm; Frank Gohlke
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2007-11-22       Impact factor: 3.067

View more
  18 in total

1.  What Regions of the Distal Clavicle Have the Greatest Bone Mineral Density and Cortical Thickness? A Cadaveric Study.

Authors:  Raymond E Chen; Sandeep P Soin; Rami El-Shaar; Gregg T Nicandri; Hani A Awad; Michael D Maloney; Ilya Voloshin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Reconstruction of the coracoclavicular and acromioclavicular ligaments with semitendinosus tendon graft: a pilot study.

Authors:  Maristella F Saccomanno; Mario Fodale; Luigi Capasso; Gianpiero Cazzato; Giuseppe Milano
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2014-05-08

3.  Radiographic features and complications following coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Brian P Kennedy; Zehava Sadka Rosenberg; Michael J Alaia; Mohammad Samim; Erin F Alaia
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2020-01-11       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Open capsular and ligament reconstruction with semitendinosus hamstring autograft successfully controls superior and posterior translation for type V acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Authors:  Raffaele Garofalo; Enrico Ceccarelli; Alessandro Castagna; Vittorio Calvisi; Brody Flanagin; Marco Conti; Sumant G Krishnan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-04-22       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  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

6.  Early clinical and radiographic results of fixation with the TightRope device for Rockwood type V acromioclavicular joint dislocation: A retrospective review of 15 patients.

Authors:  Raşit Özcafer; Kutalmış Albayrak; Osman Lapçin; Engin Çetinkaya; Yavuz Arıkan; Murat Gül
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 1.511

7.  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

Review 8.  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

9.  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

10.  Locking plate combined with titanium cable for Neer type II distal clavicle fractures.

Authors:  Fan Zhang; Qiang Fu; Yongchuan Li; Nan Lu; Aimin Chen; Liangyu Zhao
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.