Acromioclavicular Joint

BackgroundThere exists a vast number of surgical treatment options for acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries, and the current literature has yet to determine an equivocally superior treatment. AC joint repair has a long history and dates back to the beginning of the twentieth century.Main bodySince then, over 150 different techniques have been described, covering open and closed techniques. Low grade injuries such as Type I-II according to the modified Rockwood classification should be treated conservatively, while high-grade injuries (types IV-VI) may be indicated for operative treatment. However, controversy exists if operative treatment is superior to nonoperative treatment, especially in grade III injuries, as functional impairment due to scapular dyskinesia or chronic pain remains concerning following non-operative treatment. Patients with a stable AC joint without overriding of the clavicle and without significant scapular dysfunction (Type IIIA) may benefit from non-interventional approaches, in contrast to patients with overriding of the clavicle and therapy-resistant scapular dysfunction (Type IIIB). If these patients are considered non-responders to a conservative approach, an anatomic AC joint reconstruction using a hybrid technique should be considered. In chronic AC joint injuries, surgery is indicated after failed nonoperative treatment of 3 to 6 months. Anatomic AC joint reconstruction techniques along with biologic augmentation (e.g. Hybrid techniques, suture fixation) should be considered for chronic high-grade instabilities, accounting for the lack of intrinsic healing and scar-forming potential of the ligamentous tissue in the chronic setting. However, complication and clinical failure rates remain high, which may be a result of technical failures or persistent horizontal and rotational instability.ConclusionFuture research should focus on addressing horizontal and rotational instability, to restore native physiological and biomechanical properties of the AC joint.

BackgroundThere is no consensus on the effects of surgical versus conservative treatment on Rockwood type-III dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint in general orthopedic practice. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients managed surgically and conservatively following type-III acromioclavicular (AC) dislocation.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE via Ovid SP, and PubMed databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Patient data were pooled using standard meta-analytic approaches. For continuous variables, the weighted mean difference was used. For dichotomous data, the odds ratio was calculated.ResultsThe current analysis included 10 trials on this topic, and the results demonstrated that there were no significant differences between surgical and conservative treatment in terms of pain, weakness, tenderness, post-traumatic arthritis, restriction of strength, unsatisfactory function, and scores (Constant, UCLA, Imatani, SST, DASH, Larsen). Analyses of ossification of the coracoclavicular ligament (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.01-2.61) and osteolysis of the lateral clavicle (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.27-6.52) suggested better function with conservative treatment versus surgical treatment, but the latter was superior to conservative treatment with regard to loss of anatomic reduction. Only 1 study showed a higher acromioclavicular joint instability score for surgical management compared with conservative management (P ConclusionIn the management of Rockwood type-III AC dislocation, conservative treatment is superior to surgical treatment. Nonoperative treatment results in a lower incidence of ossification of the coracoclavicular ligament and osteolysis of the lateral clavicle compared with operative treatment. However, there was no statistical difference between operative and nonoperative treatment in terms of clinical outcomes.

The acromioclavicular joint represents the link between the clavicle and the scapula, which is responsible for the synchronized dynamic of the shoulder girdle. Chronic acromioclavicular joint instability involves changes in the orientation of the scapula, which provokes cinematic alterations that might result in chronic pain. Several surgical strategies for the management of patients with chronic and symptomatic acromioclavicular joint instability have been described. The range of possibilities includes anatomical and non-anatomical techniques, open and arthroscopy-assisted procedures, and biological and synthetic grafts. Surgical management of chronic acromioclavicular joint instability should involve the reconstruction of the torn ligaments because it is accepted that from three weeks after the injury, these structures may lack healing potential. Here, we provide a review of the literature regarding the management of chronic acromioclavicular joint instability.Level of evidenceExpert opinion, Level V.

PurposeComplete acromioclavicular (AC) dislocation associated with fracture of the coracoid process (CP) is uncommon. The strong coracoclavicular ligaments, instead of rupture, may avulse the CP near its base, and with disruption of the AC joint may allow complete dislocation of the clavicle. We report ten cases, one of the largest series in literature, and reviewed the findings and treatment previous reported cases, to allow potential readers to establish the most appropriate treatment.MethodsWe have prospectively collected those cases in which we had identified an association of an AC dislocation with a fracture of the CP, as well as retrospectively reviewed the records that were coded as AC dislocations and CP fracture looking for this association in the senior author institutions. A literature search was completed on PubMed, Web of Science and Scholar Google, using a sensitive search strategy.ResultsWe have collected a total of ten patients with the association of a CP fracture to an AC dislocation in a period of twenty-five years. A review of the cases reported in literature shows a great variability in treatment methods from conservative to more surgically in recent years.ConclusionsWhen an AC dislocation is identified by clinical examination and X-rays, one should be aware of a possible fracture of the CP. It is possible this association to be more frequent than shown in literature because of the CP fracture can easily be missed out or mistaken with an unfussed epiphysis in routine anteroposterior radiography. Multiple approaches have been opted for by surgeons to deal with this combined injury and are the basis of this review.