Literature DB >> 28832388

General Health Status After Nonoperative Versus Operative Treatment for Acute, Complete Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Jeffrey M Mah1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the general health status of patients after nonoperative (Non-op) versus operative (OP) treatment for acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations.
DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial conducted in 11 Canadian trauma centers. A total of 83 patients with acute (≤28 days old), complete (Rockwood grades III, IV, or V) dislocations of the AC joint were included in this study. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to Non-op treatment or OP treatment with hook plate fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physical and mental health were evaluated using the Short Form-36 version 2 survey at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years.
RESULTS: In the Non-op group, 33 patients had grade III injuries, 3 patients had grade IV injuries, 5 patients had grade V injuries, and the injury grade was unknown for 2 patients. In the OP group, 37 patients had grade III injuries and 3 patients had grade V injuries (no difference in Type IV and V Non-op vs. OP, P = 0.12). Fifty-eight percent of patients in the Non-op group and 63% of patients in the OP group completed the 2-year follow-up. The Non-op group had better physical health scores than the OP group at 3 months after treatment (52.13 vs. 45.75, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the physical health scores of the 2 groups at any other point (6 weeks, 45.81 vs. 41.21, P = 0.03; 6 months, 54.50 vs. 51.61, P = 0.02; 1 year, 55.10 vs. 53.96, P = 0.37; 2 years, 55.24 vs. 57.13, P = 0.17). Mental health scores were similar between the Non-op and OP groups at each follow-up interval (6 weeks, 49.29 vs. 51.27, P = 0.49; 3 months, 52.24 vs. 55.84, P = 0.13; 6 months, 54.89 vs. 55.05, P = 0.93; 1 year, 55.35 vs. 56.72, P = 0.35; 2 years, 56.41 vs. 55.43, P = 0.56). In both treatment groups, the preinjury physical and mental health scores were better than published population norms before declining to a level equal to or below the norm after dislocation. Physical health recovered to a level above the norm at 6 months in the Non-op group and 2 years in the OP group. Mental health recovered at 3 months in the OP group and 6 months in the Non-op group.
CONCLUSIONS: Hook plate fixation does not lead to improved general health status compared with Non-op treatment. Presently, there is no definitive evidence that hook plate fixation is superior to Non-op treatment for acute complete AC joint dislocations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28832388     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000881

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  10 in total

Review 1.  Acromioclavicular joint injuries revisited: Pathoanatomy, pathomechanics, and clinical presentation.

Authors:  W Ben Kibler; Aaron Sciascia
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2022-09-01

2.  Three-dimensional morphometric analysis of the lateral clavicle and acromion: Implications for surgical treatment using subacromial support.

Authors:  Martin Zenker; Javad Shamsollahi; André Galm; Harry A Hoyen; Chunyan Jiang; Simon Lambert; Stefaan Nijs; Martin Jaeger
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2022-04-21

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocation of the shoulder in adults.

Authors:  Marcel Js Tamaoki; Mário Lenza; Fabio T Matsunaga; João Carlos Belloti; Marcelo H Matsumoto; Flávio Faloppa
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-11

5.  Better Radiographic Reduction and Lower Complication Rates With Combined Coracoclavicular and Acromioclavicular Ligament Reconstruction Than With Isolated Coracoclavicular Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jordan D Walters; Anthony Ignozzi; Francis Bustos; Brian C Werner; Stephen F Brockmeier
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-02-24

6.  Fifteen-degree clavicular hook plate achieves better clinical outcomes in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Authors:  Guanghui Li; Tuoen Liu; Xianfang Shao; Zhijun Liu; Jianhui Duan; Raji Akileh; Shousong Cao; Dadi Jin
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 1.671

7.  A modified single-endobutton technique combined with nice knot for treatment of Rockwood type III or V acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Authors:  Fangning Hu; Shumei Han; Fanxiao Liu; Zhuang Wang; Honglei Jia; Fu Wang; Lingfei Hu; Jing Chen; Bomin Wang; Yongliang Yang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Nonoperative Management of Traumatic Acromioclavicular Joint Injury: A Clinical Commentary with Clinical Practice Considerations.

Authors:  Aaron Sciascia; Aaron J Bois; W Ben Kibler
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2022-04-01

9.  Is Bending the Hook Plate Necessary in Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation?

Authors:  Kyu-Hak Jung
Journal:  Clin Shoulder Elb       Date:  2021-12-01

10.  Acute Fixation of Type IV and V Acromioclavicular Separations: An Internal Splint Technique.

Authors:  Joey A LaMartina; Brian C Lau; Liane Miller; Madeleine A Salesky; Brian T Feeley; C Benjamin Ma; Alan L Zhang
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2018-07-10
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.