nach oben

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Erschienen in:

24.07.2020 | SHOULDER

Conversion to anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction (ACCR) shows similar clinical outcomes compared to successful non-operative treatment in chronic primary type III to V acromioclavicular joint injuries

verfasst von: Lukas N. Muench, Daniel P. Berthold, Colin Uyeki, Cameron Kia, Mark P. Cote, Andreas B. Imhoff, Knut Beitzel, Katia Corona, Augustus D. Mazzocca, Simone Cerciello

Erschienen in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Ausgabe 7/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent successful nonoperative treatment for type III-V acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injuries to those who eventually required conversion to anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction (ACCR) at a minimum 5-year follow-up.

Methods

Patients with primary, chronic type III-V ACJ injuries who either underwent successful conservative treatment or conversion to ACCR after failing a trail of conservative management between 2003 and 2014 with a minimum 5-year follow-up were included in the study. Clinical outcome measures comprised the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, collected preoperatively and at final visit for the ACCR group. Outcome scores for patients with successful conservative treatment were only collected at final visit. A Self- Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score was obtained at terminal follow-up for both groups.

Results

Twenty-two patients (mean age: 40.1 ± 15.6 years) with successful nonoperative treatment and twenty-one patients (mean age: 43.6 ± 12.0 years) who required conversion to ACCR were included in the study. At final follow-up, patients with successful non-operative treatment achieved similar ASES (93.0±12.0NonOP vs. 86.1±16.8ACCR), SST (11.2±1.4NonOP vs. 10.7±2.0ACCR) and SANE scores (80.9±19.7NonOPvs. 90.5±14.7ACCR) compared to those who were converted to ACCR. Additionally, patients who underwent conversion to ACCR showed significant improvement in ASES (49.8±18.1pre vs. 86.1±16.8post; Δ36.3±19.7) and SST scores (6.5±3.2prevs. 10.7±2.0post; Δ4.2±4.0) from pre- to postoperative.

Conclusion

At a minimum 5-year follow-up, patients with successful non-operative treatment for type III-V ACJ injuries achieved similar clinical outcomes compared to those who were converted to ACCR. In patients with chronic severe ACJ dislocation a trial of conservative treatment may be attempted, astime from injuryto eventual conversion to ACCR had no significant influence on postoperative clinical outcomes.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Beitzel K, Cote MP, Apostolakos J, Solovyova O, Judson CH, Ziegler CG et al (2013) Current concepts in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Arthroscopy 29:387–397CrossRef

Beitzel K, Mazzocca AD, Bak K, Itoi E, Kibler WB, Mirzavan R et al (2014) ISAKOS upper extremity committee consensus statement on the need for diversification of the Rockwood classification for acromioclavicular joint injuries. Arthroscopy 30:271–278CrossRef

Berthold DP, Muench LN, Dyrna F, Uyeki CL, Cote MP, Imhoff AB et al (2020) Radiographic alterations in clavicular bone tunnel width following anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction (ACCR) for chronic acromioclavicular joint injuries. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05980-zCrossRefPubMed

Carbone S, Postacchini R, Gumina S (2015) Scapular dyskinesis and SICK syndrome in patients with a chronic type III acromioclavicular dislocation. Results of rehabilitation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1473–1480CrossRef

Carofino BC, Mazzocca AD (2010) The anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction: surgical technique and indications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:37–46CrossRef

Cote MP, Wojcik KE, Gomlinski G, Mazzocca AD (2010) Rehabilitation of acromioclavicular joint separations: operative and nonoperative considerations. Clin Sports Med 29(213–228):vii

Dunphy TR, Damodar D, Heckmann ND, Sivasundaram L, Omid R, Hatch GF 3rd (2016) Functional outcomes of type V acromioclavicular injuries with nonsurgical treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24:728–734CrossRef

Dyrna F, Berthold DP, Feucht MJ, Muench LN, Martetschlager F, Imhoff AB et al (2019) The importance of biomechanical properties in revision acromioclavicular joint stabilization: a scoping review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05742-6CrossRefPubMed

Frank RM, Cotter EJ, Leroux TS, Romeo AA (2019) Acromioclavicular joint injuries: evidence-based treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00105CrossRefPubMed

10.

Gowd AK, Liu JN, Cabarcas BC, Cvetanovich GL, Garcia GH, Manderle BJ et al (2019) Current concepts in the operative management of acromioclavicular dislocations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of operative techniques. Am J Sports Med 47:2745–2758CrossRef

11.

Gumina S, Carbone S, Postacchini F (2009) Scapular dyskinesis and SICK scapula syndrome in patients with chronic type III acromioclavicular dislocation. Arthroscopy 25:40–45CrossRef

12.

Izadpanah K, Weitzel E, Honal M, Winterer J, Vicari M, Maier D et al (2012) In vivo analysis of coracoclavicular ligament kinematics during shoulder abduction. Am J Sports Med 40:185–192CrossRef

13.

Kibler WB, Sciascia A (2010) Current concepts: scapular dyskinesis. Br J Sports Med 44:300–305CrossRef

14.

Korsten K, Gunning AC, Leenen LP (2014) Operative or conservative treatment in patients with Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: a systematic review and update of current literature. Int Orthop 38:831–838CrossRef

15.

Lippitt SB, Harryman DT, Matsen FA (1993) A practical tool for evaluating function: the simple shoulder test. In: Matsen FA, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ (eds) The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stability. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, IL, pp 501–518

16.

Mazzocca AD, Arciero RA, Bicos J (2007) Evaluation and treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Am J Sports Med 35:316–329CrossRef

17.

Mazzocca AD, Conway JE, Johnson S, Rios CG, Dumonski ML, Santangelo SA et al (2004) The anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Oper Tech Sports Med 12:56–61CrossRef

18.

Millett PJ, Horan MP, Warth RJ (2015) Two-year outcomes after primary anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 31:1962–1973CrossRef

19.

Moatshe G, Kruckeberg BM, Chahla J, Godin JA, Cinque ME, Provencher MT et al (2018) Acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction for acromioclavicular joint instability: a systematic review of clinical and radiographic outcomes. Arthroscopy 34(1979–1995):e1978

20.

Muench LN, Kia C, Jerliu A, Murphy M, Berthold DP, Cote MP et al (2019) Functional and radiographic outcomes after anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction for type III/V acromioclavicular joint injuries. Orthop J Sports Med 7:2325967119884539CrossRef

21.

Nissen CW, Chatterjee A (2007) Type III acromioclavicular separation: results of a recent survey on its management. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 36:89–93

22.

Petri M, Warth RJ, Greenspoon JA, Horan MP, Abrams RF, Kokmeyer D et al (2016) Clinical results after conservative management for grade III acromioclavicular joint injuries: does eventual surgery affect overall outcomes? Arthroscopy 32:740–746CrossRef

23.

Richards R, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG et al (1994) A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3:347–352CrossRef

24.

Rockwood CA (1984) Injuries to the acromioclavicular joint: subluxations and dislocations about the shoulder. In: RC A, Green DP (eds) Fractures in adults. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 860–910

25.

Seo Y-J, Yoo Y-S, Noh K-C, Song S-Y, Lee Y-B, Kim H-J et al (2012) Dynamic function of coracoclavicular ligament at different shoulder abduction angles: a study using a 3-dimensional finite element model. Arthroscopy 28:778–787CrossRef

26.

Smith TO, Chester R, Pearse EO, Hing CB (2011) Operative versus non-operative management following Rockwood grade III acromioclavicular separation: a meta-analysis of the current evidence base. J Orthop Traumatol 12:19–27CrossRef

27.

Tamaoki MJ, Lenza M, Matsunaga FT, Belloti JC, Matsumoto MH, Faloppa F (2019) Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocation of the shoulder in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD007429PubMed

28.

Tischer T, Salzmann GM, El-Azab H, Vogt S, Imhoff AB (2009) Incidence of associated injuries with acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations types III through V. Am J Sports Med 37:136–139CrossRef

29.

Trainer G, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD (2008) Practical management of grade III acromioclavicular separations. Clin J Sport Med 18:162–166CrossRef

30.

Verstift DE, Welsink CL, Spaans AJ, van den Bekerom MPJ (2019) Return to sport after surgical treatment for high-grade (Rockwood III–VI) acromioclavicular dislocation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:3803–3812CrossRef

31.

Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC (1999) Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Am J Sports Med 27:214–221CrossRef

32.

Xará-Leite F, Andrade R, Moreira PS, Coutinho L, Ayeni OR, Sevivas N et al (2019) Anatomic and non-anatomic reconstruction improves post-operative outcomes in chronic acromio-clavicular instability: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:3779–3796CrossRef

Titel: Conversion to anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction (ACCR) shows similar clinical outcomes compared to successful non-operative treatment in chronic primary type III to V acromioclavicular joint injuries
verfasst von: Lukas N. Muench
Daniel P. Berthold
Colin Uyeki
Cameron Kia
Mark P. Cote
Andreas B. Imhoff
Knut Beitzel
Katia Corona
Augustus D. Mazzocca
Simone Cerciello
Publikationsdatum: 24.07.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Ausgabe 7/2021
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06159-2

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Conversion to anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction (ACCR) shows similar clinical outcomes compared to successful non-operative treatment in chronic primary type III to V acromioclavicular joint injuries