Literature DB >> 29657459

Stress radiographs for evaluating acromioclavicular joint separations in an active-duty patient population: What have we learned?

K Aaron Shaw1, John Synovec1, Josef Eichinger1, Christopher J Tucker1, Jason A Grassbaugh1, Stephen A Parada1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Acromioclavicular (AC) joint separation is a common entity in athletic patient populations. The surgical treatment of these injuries varies based upon extent of injury, with numerous imaging modalities recommended to differentiate injury severity and treatment options. The use of weighted stress radiographs is controversial in the diagnostic evaluation of AC separation with previous consensus recommending against their use. No study to date has investigated the clinical utilization of diagnostic studies in the evaluation of AC joint separations in a military surgeon population.
METHODS: Thirty-eight shoulder or sports medicine sub-specialty certified orthopaedic surgeons on active service in the Army, Air Force, and Navy were surveyed on their evaluation and treatment protocols for AC joint injuries. Specifically analyzed were imaging choice including the use of weighted stress radiographs as well as treatment recommendations based upon Rockwood grade. Responses were recorded in addition to surgeon descriptive data. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven of the identified thirty eight surgeons responded to the survey, for a 97% response rate. Of the group, 70% of surgeons were within 10 years of completing fellowship with an estimated average of 15 AC joint separations treated annually. Plain radiographic examination was relied upon by 48% of surgeons for treatment of AC joint separation with 13% using weighted stress radiographs. Overall, 10% of surgeon stated that their treatment plan would vary based upon results from a weighted stress view. 51% of surgeons included magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic approach of these injuries. Treatment recommendation varied according to injury severity with 78% preferring nonoperative treatment for acute Grade III injuries with 86% waiting a minimum of 3 months before proceeding with operative treatment. For Grade V injuries, 81% of surgeon preferred operative treatment, with 59% incorporating a soft-tissue graft in their repair or reconstructive procedure. DISCUSSION: This study identified substantial practice variation amongst military surgeons treating a relatively homogenous population with AC joint separations, reflective of a lack of definitive evidence to guide diagnosis and treatment. Overall, nonoperative management is the preferred initial approach for Type III injuries and operative treatment is the preferred initial approach for Type V injuries. The diagnostic evaluation varied across the surgeon cohort, but 87% elected against the use of weighted stress radiographs for the evaluation of AC joint separations, with only 10% relying upon them to dictate their recommended treatment. Future research identifying optimal diagnosis and treatment of AC joint separations is needed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acromioclavicular joint injuries; Imaging; Military; Stress radiographs; Survey

Year:  2018        PMID: 29657459      PMCID: PMC5895893          DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2018.01.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop        ISSN: 0972-978X


  22 in total

1.  Pictorial essay. MR imaging appearance and classification of acromioclavicular joint injury.

Authors:  Gregory E Antonio; Jae Hyun Cho; Christine B Chung; Debra J Trudell; Donald Resnick
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Practical management of grade III acromioclavicular separations.

Authors:  Gabriel Trainer; Robert A Arciero; Augustus D Mazzocca
Journal:  Clin J Sport Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.638

3.  Surgical technique affects outcomes in acromioclavicular reconstruction.

Authors:  Jason A Grassbaugh; Chad Cole; Kurt Wohlrab; Josef Eichinger
Journal:  J Surg Orthop Adv       Date:  2013

4.  A comparative analysis of operative versus nonoperative treatment of grade III acromioclavicular separations.

Authors:  R D Galpin; R J Hawkins; R W Grainger
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Inter- and intraobserver reliability of the radiographic diagnosis and treatment of acromioclavicular joint separations.

Authors:  Matthew J Kraeutler; Gerald R Williams; Steven B Cohen; Michael G Ciccotti; Bradford S Tucker; Joshua S Dines; David W Altchek; Christopher C Dodson
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.390

6.  Fractures and ligamentous injuries of the clavicle and its articulation.

Authors:  F L Allman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1967-06       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  The value of weighted views of the acromioclavicular joint. Results of a survey.

Authors:  J J Yap; L A Curl; R S Kvitne; E G McFarland
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 8.  Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of acromioclavicular dislocations.

Authors:  M Post
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Conservative or surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation. A prospective, controlled, randomized study.

Authors:  E Larsen; A Bjerg-Nielsen; P Christensen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).

Authors:  Gunther Eysenbach
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2004-09-29       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  1 in total

1.  Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries in Professional Ice Hockey Players: Epidemiologic and MRI Findings and Association With Return to Play.

Authors:  Lawrence M White; Jonathan Ehmann; Robert R Bleakney; Anthony M Griffin; John Theodoropoulos
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-11-19
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.