Literature DB >> 28861851

A comparison between two double-button endoscopically assisted surgical techniques for the treatment acute acromioclavicular dislocations.

P Vulliet1, M Le Hanneur2, V Cladiere3, P Loriaut4, P Boyer3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes between two endoscopically assisted double-button techniques in high-grade acute acromioclavicular separations.
METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was conducted in patients with acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation Rockwood types III and V, from 2009 to 2014. All were treated endoscopically, with a 1-year minimum follow-up. Two consecutive series were conducted; the first (TR group) received the TightRope® system, whereas last series (DB group) was treated with the Dog Bone® button technology (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA). Primary endpoints were last follow-up values of Constant score (CS) and Quick-DASH (QD) score. Moreover, the posttraumatic displacement and its evolution were assessed on bilateral Zanca radiographs. A displacement of 5 mm or greater the day after surgery was considered as a lack of reduction; the same difference on last follow-up X-rays was considered as a loss of reduction.
RESULTS: Forty patients were reviewed: 22 in the TR group and 18 in the DB group. After a mean follow-up of 27.7 ± 8.3 months, CS and QD averaged, respectively, 94.3 ± 4.4 and 2.0 ± 2.6 in the TR series, whereas they averaged, respectively, 95 ± 6.1 and 3.4 ± 3.3 in the DB series after a mean follow-up of 24.1 ± 5 months (PCS = 0.16, PQDS = 0.08). Lack of reduction and loss of reduction rates were significantly higher in the DB group, with P = 0.0005 and P < 0.0001, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques provided good to excellent functional outcomes. However, considering inferior radiological results using the Dog Bone® device, we would prefer the TightRope® device in acute acromioclavicular dislocations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV: Therapeutic study-cases series.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acromioclavicular instability; Arthroscopic stabilization; Button; Dog Bone; TightRope

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28861851     DOI: 10.1007/s12306-017-0501-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg        ISSN: 2035-5114


  26 in total

1.  A biomechanical evaluation of an anatomical coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Augustus D Mazzocca; Stephen A Santangelo; Sean T Johnson; Clifford G Rios; Mark L Dumonski; Robert A Arciero
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 2.  Current concepts in the surgical management of acromioclavicular joint injuries.

Authors:  David Epstein; Michael Day; Andrew Rokito
Journal:  Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis       Date:  2012

Review 3.  Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: current concepts.

Authors:  Mark Tauber
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Clinical and radiographical results after double flip button stabilization of acute grade III and IV acromioclavicular joint separations.

Authors:  Michael C Glanzmann; Stefan Buchmann; Laurent Audigé; Christoph Kolling; Matthias Flury
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Biomechanical evaluation of minimally invasive repairs for complete acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Is AC TightRope fixation better than Bosworth screw fixation for minimally invasive operative treatment of Rockwood III AC joint injury?

Authors:  N Darabos; I Vlahovic; N Gusic; A Darabos; B Bakota; D Miklic
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 2.586

9.  Comparing mini-open and arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint repair: functional results and return to sport.

Authors:  M Faggiani; G P Vasario; L Mattei; M J Calò; F Castoldi
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2016-06-10

10.  Arthroscopically assisted stabilization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations in a coracoclavicular Double-TightRope technique: V-shaped versus parallel drill hole orientation.

Authors:  Natascha Kraus; Norbert P Haas; Markus Scheibel; Christian Gerhardt
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2013-07-11       Impact factor: 3.067

View more
  9 in total

1.  Clinical and radiological outcome of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint dislocation: A retrospective cohort study on Hook plate versus arthroscopic assisted single coracoclavicular tunnel with DogBone™ button dual FiberTape® construct.

Authors:  Sandesh Madi; Vivek Pandey; Sujayendra Murali; Kiran Acharya
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2022-03-04

2.  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

3.  The prevalence of intraarticular associated lesions after acute acromioclavicular joint injuries is 20%. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Ruiz Ibán; Miguel Santiago Moreno Romero; Jorge Diaz Heredia; Raquel Ruiz Díaz; Alfonso Muriel; Jesus López-Alcalde
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  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

5.  [Arthroscopically-assisted treatment of acute and chronic dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint : A prospective clinical trial].

Authors:  Malte Holschen; Jonas Focke; Kai-Axel Witt; Jörn Steinbeck
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Arthroscopic Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction With TightRope and FiberTape Loop.

Authors:  Michael Marsalli; Nicolás Moran; Jose I Laso
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2018-10-08

7.  A New Coracoclavicular Guider for Minimally Invasive Anatomic Coracoclavicular Reconstruction with Two TightRope Systems in Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation.

Authors:  Yi Zhao; Lei Tan; Wan Tang; Tiecheng Yu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Minimally Invasive AC Joint Reconstruction System (MINAR®) in Modified Triple-Button Technique for the Treatment of Acute AC Joint Dislocation.

Authors:  Robert Breuer; Alexandra Unterrainer; Micha Komjati; Thomas M Tiefenboeck; Klemens Trieb; Christof Pirkl
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 4.241

9.  Acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint dislocation patients treated with titanium cable insertion under a homemade guider.

Authors:  Jun Wang; Yongfeng Cui; Yuhang Zhang; Hang Yin
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 2.359

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.