Bancha Chernchujit1, Arrisna Artha1. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injuries to the acromioclavicular (AC) joint disrupting the AC and Coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments could lead to loss of clavicular strut function. A High-grade AC joint injury remain challenging because of highly variety of treatment and limited evidence exists comparing clinical outcomes and complications after surgery. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcome after arthroscopic assisted acromioclavicular Joint fixation and anatomic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Clinical Cohort Study. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with a high grade (Rockwood Type III-V) Acromioclavicular Joint Injury, operatively treated with arthroscopic assisted acromioclavicular joint fixation and anatomic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction from 2012 to 2018. The clinical assessment consists of Specific AC Score (SACS) and Nottingham Score. The radiographic evaluations were performed to evaluate the stability of reduction and the complications are assessed. RESULTS: There were a significant different between groups with AC joint reconstruction and fixation group (20 vs. 8, p < 0.005) and (19 vs. 10, p < 0.005) in SAC score and Nottingham score, respectively. There were no significant different in CC dstance between two groups. At the last follow up 6 patient develop loss of reduction with CC percentage >50% in AC joint fixation. Complication developed in 5 patients (17%) including 2 mild osteolysis, 1 superficial infection, 1 implant failure, and 1 clavicle fracture. CONCLUSION: Anatomic AC joint reconstruction was associated with functional and radiologic benefits and better restored the stability.
BACKGROUND: Injuries to the acromioclavicular (AC) joint disrupting the AC and Coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments could lead to loss of clavicular strut function. A High-grade AC joint injury remain challenging because of highly variety of treatment and limited evidence exists comparing clinical outcomes and complications after surgery. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcome after arthroscopic assisted acromioclavicular Joint fixation and anatomic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Clinical Cohort Study. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with a high grade (Rockwood Type III-V) Acromioclavicular Joint Injury, operatively treated with arthroscopic assisted acromioclavicular joint fixation and anatomic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction from 2012 to 2018. The clinical assessment consists of Specific AC Score (SACS) and Nottingham Score. The radiographic evaluations were performed to evaluate the stability of reduction and the complications are assessed. RESULTS: There were a significant different between groups with AC joint reconstruction and fixation group (20 vs. 8, p < 0.005) and (19 vs. 10, p < 0.005) in SAC score and Nottingham score, respectively. There were no significant different in CC dstance between two groups. At the last follow up 6 patient develop loss of reduction with CC percentage >50% in AC joint fixation. Complication developed in 5 patients (17%) including 2 mild osteolysis, 1 superficial infection, 1 implant failure, and 1 clavicle fracture. CONCLUSION: Anatomic AC joint reconstruction was associated with functional and radiologic benefits and better restored the stability.
Authors: Felix Dyrna; Florian B Imhoff; B Haller; Sepp Braun; Elifho Obopilwe; John M Apostolakos; Daichi Morikawa; Andreas B Imhoff; Augustus D Mazzocca; Knut Beitzel Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Felix G E Dyrna; Florian B Imhoff; Andreas Voss; Sepp Braun; Elifho Obopilwe; John M Apostolakos; Daichi Morikawa; Brendan Comer; Andreas B Imhoff; Augustus D Mazzocca; Knut Beitzel Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Gilbert Moatshe; Bradley M Kruckeberg; Jorge Chahla; Jonathan A Godin; Mark E Cinque; Matthew T Provencher; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: José Antonio Cano-Martínez; Gregorio Nicolás-Serrano; Julio Bento-Gerard; Francisco Picazo-Marín; Josefina Andrés-Grau Journal: Injury Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Anirudh K Gowd; Joseph N Liu; Brandon C Cabarcas; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Grant H Garcia; Brandon J Manderle; Nikhil N Verma Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 6.202