Dean Wang1, Benjamin E Bluth2, Chad R Ishmael2, Jeremiah R Cohen2, Jeffrey C Wang3, Frank A Petrigliano2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 10833 Le Conte Ave, 76-143 CHS, Box 956902, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-6902, USA. deanwangmd@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 10833 Le Conte Ave, 76-143 CHS, Box 956902, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-6902, USA. 3. Orthopaedic Spine Service, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prior studies have reported high complication rates with acromioclavicular joint reconstruction (ACJR). However, many of these reports have suffered from small sample sizes and inclusion of older surgical techniques. The purpose of this study was to determine the rates of early complications requiring reoperation in patients treated with ACJR. METHODS: From 2007 to 2011, patients who were treated with ACJR were identified using the PearlDiver database, a large insurance database in the USA. The following reoperations were then queried from this patient cohort: irrigation and debridement within 30 days of index surgery, manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) of the shoulder joint within 3 months of index surgery, and revision ACJR, distal clavicle excision, and removal of hardware within 6 months of index surgery. RESULTS: In total, 2106 patients treated with ACJR were identified. The reoperation rates for irrigation and debridement, MUA, revision ACJR, distal clavicle excision, and removal of hardware were 2.6, 1.3, 4.2, 2.8, and 6.2 %, respectively. Patients ≥35 years of age and females more likely to undergo a reoperation after ACJR. Specifically, patients ≥35 years of age were more likely to undergo MUA and revision ACJR, while patients ≥50 years of age were more likely to undergo an irrigation and debridement. Females were more likely than males to undergo revision ACJR and distal clavicle excision. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients and females were more likely to experience postoperative complications requiring reoperations, including revision ACJR, distal clavicle excision, and irrigation and debridement. By analysing a large cohort of patients across multiple centres and providers, this study provides valuable insight into the recent complication profiles of ACJR, allowing surgeons to appropriately counsel patients on the risks of these procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
PURPOSE: Prior studies have reported high complication rates with acromioclavicular joint reconstruction (ACJR). However, many of these reports have suffered from small sample sizes and inclusion of older surgical techniques. The purpose of this study was to determine the rates of early complications requiring reoperation in patients treated with ACJR. METHODS: From 2007 to 2011, patients who were treated with ACJR were identified using the PearlDiver database, a large insurance database in the USA. The following reoperations were then queried from this patient cohort: irrigation and debridement within 30 days of index surgery, manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) of the shoulder joint within 3 months of index surgery, and revision ACJR, distal clavicle excision, and removal of hardware within 6 months of index surgery. RESULTS: In total, 2106 patients treated with ACJR were identified. The reoperation rates for irrigation and debridement, MUA, revision ACJR, distal clavicle excision, and removal of hardware were 2.6, 1.3, 4.2, 2.8, and 6.2 %, respectively. Patients ≥35 years of age and females more likely to undergo a reoperation after ACJR. Specifically, patients ≥35 years of age were more likely to undergo MUA and revision ACJR, while patients ≥50 years of age were more likely to undergo an irrigation and debridement. Females were more likely than males to undergo revision ACJR and distal clavicle excision. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients and females were more likely to experience postoperative complications requiring reoperations, including revision ACJR, distal clavicle excision, and irrigation and debridement. By analysing a large cohort of patients across multiple centres and providers, this study provides valuable insight into the recent complication profiles of ACJR, allowing surgeons to appropriately counsel patients on the risks of these procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Authors: Xinning Li; Richard Ma; Asheesh Bedi; David M Dines; David W Altchek; Joshua S Dines Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 5.284
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
Authors: Felix Dyrna; Daniel P Berthold; Matthias J Feucht; Lukas N Muench; Frank Martetschläger; Andreas B Imhoff; Augustus D Mazzocca; Knut Beitzel Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 4.342