Miguel Angel Ruiz Ibán1, Miguel Santiago Moreno Romero2, Jorge Diaz Heredia2, Raquel Ruiz Díaz2, Alfonso Muriel3,4, Jesus López-Alcalde3,5,6. 1. Unidad de Hombro Y Codo, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Cta Colmenar km 9,100, Madrid, Spain. drmri@hotmail.com. 2. Unidad de Hombro Y Codo, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, Cta Colmenar km 9,100, Madrid, Spain. 3. Unidad de Bioestadística Clínica, Hospital Ramón Y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain. 4. Departamento de Enfermería, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain. 5. Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (UFV)-Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 6. Cochrane Associate Centre of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To synthesise the evidence on the prevalence of associated intraarticular lesions in subjects with acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations. METHODS: A search in two electronic databases (PUMBMED and EMBASE) was performed from 1985 to 2019. Two independent reviewers selected studies that complied with the following inclusion criteria: (1) the study included data on surgically treated ACJ dislocation grade III-V in the Rockwood classification, (2) the ACJ injuries were acute (the surgery was performed less than 6 weeks after injury), (3) an arthroscopic evaluation of the glenohumeral joint was performed during surgery. The quality of the studies included was assessed using the tool of the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies with acute ACJ injuries met the initial inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 studies (9 retrospective case series, 9 prospective case series and 3 retrospective cohort studies) presented data on associated intraarticular lesions amenable for use in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysed studies included a total of 860 subjects with acute ACJ dislocations with a male/female ratio of 6.5 and a mean age of 32 years. The meta-analysis showed a prevalence of associated intraarticular lesions in subjects with acute ACJ of 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.0-26.4%; 21 studies, 860 analysed participants; P = 0.000; I2: 74.5% random-effects model; low risk of bias). CONCLUSION: One in five subjects with surgically treated acute ACJ dislocations will have an associated intraarticular lesion that requires further intervention. The case for a customary arthroscopic evaluation of the joint, even when an open procedure is performed to deal with the ACJ dislocation, is strong. Level of evidence IV Trial registry Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018090609.
PURPOSE: To synthesise the evidence on the prevalence of associated intraarticular lesions in subjects with acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations. METHODS: A search in two electronic databases (PUMBMED and EMBASE) was performed from 1985 to 2019. Two independent reviewers selected studies that complied with the following inclusion criteria: (1) the study included data on surgically treated ACJdislocation grade III-V in the Rockwood classification, (2) the ACJ injuries were acute (the surgery was performed less than 6 weeks after injury), (3) an arthroscopic evaluation of the glenohumeral joint was performed during surgery. The quality of the studies included was assessed using the tool of the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies with acute ACJ injuries met the initial inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 studies (9 retrospective case series, 9 prospective case series and 3 retrospective cohort studies) presented data on associated intraarticular lesions amenable for use in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysed studies included a total of 860 subjects with acute ACJ dislocations with a male/female ratio of 6.5 and a mean age of 32 years. The meta-analysis showed a prevalence of associated intraarticular lesions in subjects with acute ACJ of 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.0-26.4%; 21 studies, 860 analysed participants; P = 0.000; I2: 74.5% random-effects model; low risk of bias). CONCLUSION: One in five subjects with surgically treated acute ACJ dislocations will have an associated intraarticular lesion that requires further intervention. The case for a customary arthroscopic evaluation of the joint, even when an open procedure is performed to deal with the ACJdislocation, is strong. Level of evidence IV Trial registry Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018090609.
Authors: Knut Beitzel; Augustus D Mazzocca; Klaus Bak; Eiji Itoi; William B Kibler; Raffy Mirzayan; Andreas B Imhoff; Emilio Calvo; Guillermo Arce; Kevin Shea Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Paolo Arrigoni; Paul C Brady; Leonardo Zottarelli; Johannes Barth; Pablo Narbona; David Huberty; Samuel S Koo; Christopher R Adams; Peter Parten; Patrick J Denard; Patrick Denard; Stephen S Burkhart Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Joe De Beer; Michael Schaer; Kim Latendresse; Sumit Raniga; Beat K Moor; Matthias A Zumstein Journal: Orthopedics Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 1.390
Authors: Theodorakys Marín Fermín; Jean Michel Hovsepian; Víctor Miguel Rodrigues Fernandes; Ioannis Terzidis; Emmanouil Papakostas; Jason Koh Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-02-24