| Literature DB >> 35971605 |
Mohsen Mardani-Kivi1, Kamran Asadi1, Ehsan Kazemnejad Leili2, Keyvan Hashemi-Motlagh3, Amin Izadi1, Mona Pishgahpour1, Zohre Darabipour1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injuries are caused by direct trauma to the shoulders, and various methods and techniques are used to treat them; however, none of the options can be considered the gold standard. This study examines the horizontal stability of the ACJ after a complete dislocation was repaired using one of two Ethibond suture techniques, the loop technique and the two holes in the clavicle technique.Entities:
Keywords: Horizontal instability; Joint instability; Shoulder dislocations; Suturing techniques; Acromioclavicular joint
Year: 2022 PMID: 35971605 PMCID: PMC9471814 DOI: 10.5397/cise.2022.00871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Shoulder Elb ISSN: 1226-9344
Fig. 1.Schematic diagram of surgery: (A) two holes, (B) loop.
Fig. 2.Preoperative (A) and postoperative (B) X-ray.
Fig. 3.Axillary shoulder X-ray view. Line A: anterior edge of the acromion, Line B: anterior edge of the lateral clavicle, x: distance between A and B that determine horizontal stability.
Fig. 4.Participant flowchart.
Comparison of horizontal changes in shoulder position between the loop and two-hole methods at three measurement times
| Variable | Group | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loop | Two holes | Total | ||
| Horizontal 3 mo | 0.03 | |||
| Stable | 43 (82.7) | 48 (96) | 91 (89.2) | |
| Instable | 9 (17.3) | 2 (4) | 11 (10.8) | |
| Horizontal 6 mo | 0.01 | |||
| Stable | 38 (73.1) | 46 (92) | 84 (82.4) | |
| Instable | 14 (26.9) | 4 (8) | 18 (17.6) | |
| Horizontal 1 yr | 0.01 | |||
| Stable | 38 (73.1) | 46 (92) | 84 (82.4) | |
| Instable | 14 (26.9) | 4 (8) | 18 (17.6) | |
Values are presented as number (%).
Comparison of the Constant and Taft scores between the loop and two-hole surgery techniques at three measurement times
| Variable | Group | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loop | Two holes | ||
| Constant score | |||
| Before surgery | 33.2±6.4 | 35.2±6.9 | 0.108 |
| 3 mo | 91.4±4.2 | 89.7±5.0 | 0.040 |
| 6 mo | 95.6±4.0 | 94.4±4.9 | 0.175 |
| 1 yr | 95.2±3.8 | 94.0±4.6 | 0.136 |
| p-value | Ptime<0.001, Pgroup=0.121, Pint.time×group=0.041 | ||
| Taft score | |||
| Before surgery | 4.7±0.8 | 4.5±0.7 | 0.455 |
| 3 mo | 11.7±0.6 | 11.9±0.4 | 0.057 |
| 6 mo | 11.7±0.6 | 11.9±0.4 | 0.029 |
| 1 yr | 11.6±0.7 | 11.9±0.4 | 0.023 |
| p-value | Ptime<0.001, Pgroup=0.126, Pint.time×group=0.029 | ||
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
int, interaction.