Current concepts in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations

[Therapy of acute acromioclavicular joint instability. Meta-analysis of arthroscopic/minimally invasive versus open procedures]

BACKGROUND

A variety of surgical procedure are desrcibed for the treatment of acute acromioclavicular (AC-) joint injuries. Beside open techniques arthroscopic assisted procedures spread widely. Each surgical technique offers advantages and disadvantages, but none is currently accepted as a gold standard. Therefore, the study aims to review the evidence for arthroscopic and open surgical procedures in the treatment of acute AC joint instabilities.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions we conducted a defined search of Medline and Embase database for articles publisher over the last ten years.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 961 studies of which 32 were included in this review and 3 studies were suitable for a meta-analysis. The functional outcome (Constant score) showed a tendency towards better results after arthroscopic procedures (weighted mean difference 5.60, 95% confidence interval 0.36-10.64). There were no significant differences with respect to complication rates, secondary dislocation in the vertical plane, revision surgery and AC joint instability.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to inform the surgical management of acute AC joint instability. Due to inconsistent study designs there is no evidence for a general superiority of any of the open or arthroscopic procedures. Randomized, controlled studies are necessary to demonstrate whether arthroscopic techniques show a potential benefit in terms of a better functional outcome.

Value of additional acromioclavicular cerclage for horizontal stability in complete acromioclavicular separation: a biomechanical study

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether isolated anatomical coracoclavicular (CC) ligament reconstruction with two suture-button devices provides equal horizontal acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) stability compared to additional ACJ suture tape cerclage.

METHODS

A servohydraulic testing machine was used to assess horizontal ACJ translation in 12 fresh-frozen human shoulders during 5,000 cycles of dynamic anteroposterior directed loading (70 N). Horizontal ACJ stability was assessed for native specimen (n = 6) and compared to specimen with dissected AC ligaments but intact CC ligaments (n = 6). After complete AC/CC dissection, an anatomical CC reconstruction was performed with two suture-button devices (n = 6) and compared to the additional ACJ suture tape cerclage (n = 6).

RESULTS

Native specimen showed an mean horizontal amplitude of 10.8 mm [standard deviation (SD) 3.29]. After 5,000 cycles of horizontal loading (70 N), mean amplitude increased by 1.5 mm (SD 0.75, p = 0.005). Specimen with dissected AC ligaments started at an mean amplitude of 14.1 mm (SD 4.11), which was increased by 0.9 mm (SD 0.56, n.s.) after loading. Initially, amplitude of specimen with anatomical CC reconstruction was 13.2 mm (SD 2.75), which increased by 2.9 mm (SD 1.45, p = 0.001) after loading. The specimen with additional AC cerclage initially showed an amplitude of 10.6 mm (SD 2.35). After loading, translation was increased by 3.0 mm (SD 0.97, p = 0.001). There was no failure of any surgical reconstruction in the tests.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that only combined AC and CC reconstruction can adequately re-establish physiological horizontal ACJ stability. Therefore, it is likely that a combined surgical procedure with double suture-button devices and AC suture tape cerclage can adequately re-establish horizontal AC joint stability in case of an acute injury (≥type Rockwood IV and may allow superior clinical outcomes for patients, especially if early functional rehabilitation is intended).

Current state of treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint injuries in Germany: is there a difference between specialists and non-specialists? A survey of German trauma and orthopaedic departments

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate currently preferred treatment strategies as well as the acceptance of new arthroscopic techniques among German orthopaedic surgeons. We assumed that surgeons specialized in shoulder surgery and arthroscopy would treat acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations different to non-specialized surgeons.

METHODS

Seven hundred and ninety-six orthopaedic and/or trauma departments were found through the German hospital directory of 2012. Corresponding websites were searched for the email address of the chair of shoulder surgery (if applicable) or the department. Seven hundred forty-six emails with the request for study participation including a link to an online survey of 36 questions were sent. In 60 emails, the recipient was unknown.

RESULTS

Two hundred and three (30 %) surgeons participated in the survey. one hundred and one were members of the AGA (German-speaking Society for Arthroscopy and Joint-Surgery) and/or of the DVSE (German Association of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery) and regarded as specialists, while 102 were non-members and regarded as non-specialists. According to the treatment of Rockwood I/II and IV-VI injuries, no significant differences were found. Seventy-four % of non-specialists and 67 % of specialists preferred surgical treatment for Rockwood III injuries (P = 0.046). Non-specialists would use the hook plate in 56 % followed by the TightRope in 16 %; specialists would use the TightRope in 38 % followed by the hook plate in 32 % (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of German orthopaedic and trauma surgeons advise surgical treatment for Rockwood III injuries. Specialists recommend surgery less often. Non-specialists prefer the hook plate, whereas specialists prefer the arthroscopic TightRope technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Observational survey, Level IV.

Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: complications and innovations

Minimally invasive anatomic reconstruction of the acromioclavicular joint is a technically challenging procedure. The repair must be sufficiently strong and reconstitute the joint as closely as possible. This includes restoration of both superior-inferior stability, and the often overlooked anterior-posterior stability, of the acromioclavicular joint. There is no gold standard treatment for acromioclavicular joint separation.

Biomechanical evaluation of coracoid tunnel size and location for coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of coracoid tunnel size and location on the biomechanical characteristics of cortical button fixation for coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

Thirteen matched pairs of cadaveric scapulae were used to determine the effects of coracoid tunnel size, and 6 matched pairs were used to determine the effects of coracoid tunnel location. For tunnel size, a 4.5-mm hole was drilled in the base of the coracoid of one scapula and a 6-mm hole was drilled in the contralateral scapula. For tunnel location, 2 holes were drilled: (1) The first group received a hole centered in the coracoid base and a hole 1.5 cm distal from the first, along the axis of the coracoid. (2) The second group received holes that were offset anteromedially from the first set of holes (base eccentric and distal eccentric). A cortical button-suture tape construct was placed through each tunnel, and constructs were then loaded to failure.

RESULTS

For tunnel size specimens, load at ultimate failure was significantly greater for the 4.5-mm group compared with the 6-mm group (557.6 ± 48.5 N v 466.9 ± 42.2 N, P < .05). For tunnel location, load at ultimate failure was significantly greater for the centered-distal tunnel group compared with the eccentric-distal group (538.1 ± 70.2 N v 381.0 ± 68.6 N, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A 4.5-mm tunnel in the coracoid provided greater strength for cortical button fixation than a 6-mm tunnel. In the distal coracoid, centered tunnels provided greater strength than eccentric tunnels.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

When performing cortical button fixation at the coracoid process for coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction, a 4.5-mm tunnel provides greater fixation strength than a 6-mm tunnel. The base of the coracoid is more forgiving than the distal coracoid regarding location.

Arthroscopically Assisted Reconstruction of Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocations: Anatomic AC Ligament Reconstruction With Protective Internal Bracing-The "AC-RecoBridge" Technique

An arthroscopically assisted technique for the treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations is presented. This pathology-based procedure aims to achieve anatomic healing of both the acromioclavicular ligament complex (ACLC) and the coracoclavicular ligaments. First, the acromioclavicular joint is reduced anatomically under macroscopic and radiologic control and temporarily transfixed with a K-wire. A single-channel technique using 2 suture tapes provides secure coracoclavicular stabilization. The key step of the procedure consists of the anatomic repair of the ACLC ("AC-Reco"). Basically, we have observed 4 patterns of injury: clavicular-sided, acromial-sided, oblique, and midportion tears. Direct and/or transosseous ACLC repair is performed accordingly. Then, an X-configured acromioclavicular suture tape cerclage ("AC-Bridge") is applied under arthroscopic assistance to limit horizontal clavicular translation to a physiological extent. The AC-Bridge follows the principle of internal bracing and protects healing of the ACLC repair. The AC-Bridge is tightened on top of the repair, creating an additional suture-bridge effect and promoting anatomic ACLC healing. We refer to this combined technique of anatomic ACLC repair and protective internal bracing as the "AC-RecoBridge." A detailed stepwise description of the surgical technique, including indications, technical pearls and pitfalls, and potential complications, is given.

Managing and recognizing complications after treatment of acromioclavicular joint repair or reconstruction

Complications of the acromioclavicular joint injuries can occur as a result of the injury itself, conservative management, or surgical treatment. Fortunately, the majority of acromioclavicular surgeries utilizing modern techniques and instrumentation result in successful outcomes. However, clinical failures do occur with frequency. The ability to identify the causative factor of failures makes revision surgery more likely to be successful. The purposes of this review are to highlight common problems that can occur following acromioclavicular joint surgery and discuss techniques that can be utilized in revision surgery.

Acromioclavicular third degree dislocation: surgical treatment in acute cases

Background

The management of acute Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation remains controversial, and the debate about whether patients should be conservatively or surgically treated continues. This study aims to compare conservative and surgical treatment of acute type III ACJ injuries in active sport participants (<35 years of age) by analysing clinical and radiological results after a minimum of 24 months follow-up.

Methods

The records of 72 patients with acute type III ACJ dislocations who were treated from January 2006 to December 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were categorised into two groups. group A included 25 patients treated conservatively, and group B included 30 patients treated surgically with the TightRope™ system. Seventeen patients were lost to follow-up.

All patients were evaluated at final follow-up with these clinical scores: Constant, University of California Los Angeles scale (UCLA), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Scale (ASES) and Acromioclavicular Joint Instability (ACJI) and with a subjective evaluation of the patient satisfaction, aesthetic results and shoulder function. The distance between the acromion and clavicle and between the coracoid process and clavicle were evaluated radiographically and compared with preoperative values. Δ, the difference in mm between the distance at the final follow-up and at T0 in the injured shoulder, and α, the side-to-side difference in mm at follow-up, were calculated. Heterotopic ossification and postoperative osteolysis were evaluated in both groups.

Results

There were no major intraoperative complications in the surgical group. The subjective parameters significantly differed between the two groups. Constant, ASES and UCLA scores were similar in both groups (P > 0.05), whereas ACJI results favoured the surgical group (group A, 72.4; group B, 87.9; P < 0.05). All measurements of radiographic evaluation were significantly reduced in the surgical group compared with the conservative group. In group A, we detected calcifications in 30% of patients; in group B we detected two cases of moderate osteolysis and calcifications in 70% of patients.

Conclusion

Although better subjective and radiographic results were achieved in surgically treated patients, traditional objective scores did not show significant differences between the two groups. Our results cannot support routine use of surgery to treat type III ACJ dislocations.

Management of acromioclavicular joint injuries

Although recent advances have been made in the treatment of acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries, they are still challenging for shoulder surgeons. There is a consensus that type I and II injuries should be treated nonoperatively, whereas acute type IV, V, and VI injuries should be treated surgically. There is no algorithm for correctly diagnosing and treating type III injuries, but the current trend is toward nonoperative treatment except for those with persistent symptoms and functional limitations after a course of conservative management. If surgery is indicated, newer anatomic techniques of reconstructing the coracoclavicular (CC) and AC ligaments are recommended.

Results of Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Rockwood Types III and V Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation: A Prospective, Randomized Trial With an 18- to 20-Year Follow-up

Background:

The optimal treatment of acute, complete dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) is still unresolved.

Purpose:

To determine the difference between operative and nonoperative treatment in acute Rockwood types III and V ACJ dislocation.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

In the operative treatment group, the ACJ was reduced and fixed with 2 transarticular Kirschner wires and ACJ ligament suturing. The Kirschner wires were extracted after 6 weeks. Nonoperatively treated patients received a reduction splint for 4 weeks. At the 18- to 20-year follow-up, the Constant, University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale (UCLA), Larsen, and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores were obtained, and clinical and radiographic examinations of both shoulders were performed.

Results:

Twenty-five of 35 potential patients were examined at the 18- to 20-year follow-up. There were 11 patients with Rockwood type III and 14 with type V dislocations. Delayed surgical treatment for ACJ was used in 2 patients during follow-up: 1 in the operatively treated group and 1 in the nonoperatively treated group. Clinically, ACJs were statistically significantly less prominent or unstable in the operative group than in the nonoperative group (normal/prominent/unstable: 9/4/3 and 0/6/3, respectively; P = .02) and in the operative type III (P = .03) but not type V dislocation groups. In operatively and nonoperatively treated patients, the mean Constant scores were 83 and 85, UCLA scores 25 and 27, Larsen scores 11 and 11, and SST scores 11 and 12 at follow-up, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in type III and type V dislocations. In the radiographic analysis, the ACJ was wider in the nonoperative than the operative group (8.3 vs 3.4 mm; P = .004), and in the type V dislocations (nonoperative vs operative: 8.5 vs 2.4 mm; P = .007). There was no statistically significant difference between study groups in the elevation of the lateral end of the clavicle. Both groups showed equal levels of radiologic signs of ACJ osteoarthritis and calcification of the coracoclavicular ligaments.

Conclusion:

Nonoperative treatment was shown to produce more prominent or unstable and radiographically wider ACJs than was operative treatment, but clinical results were equally good in the study groups at 18- to 20-year follow-up. Both treatment methods showed statistically significant radiographic elevations of the lateral clavicle when compared with a noninjured ACJ.

Rotational and translational stability of different methods for direct acromioclavicular ligament repair in anatomic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Many reconstructions of acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations have focused on the coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments and neglected the functional contribution of the AC ligaments and the deltotrapezial fascia.

PURPOSE

To compare the modifications of previously published methods for direct AC reconstruction in addition to a CC reconstruction. The hypothesis was that there would be significant differences within the variations of surgical reconstructions.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

A total of 24 cadaveric shoulders were tested with a servohydraulic testing system. Two digitizing cameras evaluated the 3-dimensional movement. All reconstructions were based on a CC reconstruction using 2 clavicle tunnels and a tendon graft. The following techniques were used to reconstruct the AC ligaments: a graft was shuttled underneath the AC joint back from anterior and again sutured to the acromial side of the joint (group 1), a graft was fixed intramedullary in the acromion and distal clavicle (group 2), a graft was passed over the acromion and into an acromial tunnel (group 3), and a FiberTape was fixed in a cruciate configuration (group 4). Anterior, posterior, and superior translation, as well as anterior and posterior rotation, were tested.

RESULTS

Group 1 showed significantly less posterior translation compared with the 3 other groups (P < .05) but did not show significant differences compared with the native joint. Groups 3 and 4 demonstrated significantly more posterior translation than the native joint. Group 1 showed significantly less anterior translation compared with groups 2 and 3. Group 3 demonstrated significantly more anterior translation than the native joint. Group 1 demonstrated significantly less superior translation compared with the other groups and with the native joint. The AC joint of group 1 was pulled apart less compared with all other reconstructions. Only group 1 reproduced the native joint for the anterior rotation at the posterior marker. Group 4 showed significantly increased distances for all 3 measure points when the clavicle was rotated posteriorly.

CONCLUSION

Reconstruction of the AC ligament by direct wrapping and suturing of the remaining graft around the AC joint (group 1) was the most stable method and was the only one to show anterior rotation comparable with the native joint. In contrast, the transacromial technique (group 3) showed the most translation and rotation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

An anatomic repair should address both the CC ligaments and the AC ligaments to control the optimal physiologic function (translation and rotation).

Biomechanical Consequences of Coracoclavicular Reconstruction Techniques on Clavicle Strength

BACKGROUND

Lateral clavicle fractures have been reported after coracoclavicular (CC) ligament reconstructions with bone tunnels through the clavicle.

PURPOSE

To biomechanically compare clavicle strength following 2 common CC reconstruction techniques with different bone tunnel diameters.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Testing was performed on 2 groups of matched-pair cadaveric clavicles. Clavicles were prepared with either 2.4-mm tunnels and cortical fixation button (CFB) devices or 6.0-mm tunnels with hamstring tendon grafts (TGs) and tenodesis screws; contralateral clavicles were left intact. A 3-point bending load was applied to the distal clavicles at a rate of 15 mm/min until failure. Ultimate failure load and anterior-posterior width of the clavicles 45 mm medial from the lateral border were recorded. Strength reduction was determined as the percentage reduction in ultimate failure load between paired intact and surgically prepared clavicles. Relative tunnel size was determined as the quotient of tunnel diameter and clavicle width, reported as a percentage.

RESULTS

The TG technique significantly reduced clavicle strength relative to intact (P = .011) and caused significantly more strength reduction (mean, -30.7%; range, 8.1% to -62.5%) than the CFB technique (mean, -3.8%; range, 34.2% to -28.1%; P = .031). The CFB technique was not significantly different from intact (P = .314). There was a significant correlation between clavicle width and strength reduction (τ = -0.36, P = .04) and between relative tunnel size and strength reduction (τ = 0.51, P = .005).

CONCLUSION

The TG reconstruction technique with 6.0-mm tunnels, grafts, and tenodesis screws caused significantly more reduction of clavicle strength compared with the CFB technique with 2.4-mm tunnels and CFB device. Additionally, relative tunnel width correlated highly with the strength reduction.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This information can influence intraoperative decision making based on the individual clavicle width and might influence postoperative treatment protocols. Large bone tunnels may predispose patients to clavicle fractures after anatomic CC reconstructions.

ISAKOS upper extremity committee consensus statement on the need for diversification of the Rockwood classification for acromioclavicular joint injuries

Optimal treatment for the unstable acromioclavicular (AC) joint remains a highly debated topic in the field of orthopaedic medicine. In particular, no consensus exists regarding treatment of grade III injuries, which are classified according to the Rockwood classification by disruption of both the coracoclavicular and AC ligaments. The ISAKOS Upper Extremity Committee has provided a more specific classification of shoulder pathologies to enhance the knowledge on and clinical approach to these injuries. We suggest the addition of grade IIIA and grade IIIB injuries to a modified Rockwood classification. Grade IIIA injuries would be defined by a stable AC joint without overriding of the clavicle on the cross-body adduction view and without significant scapular dysfunction. The unstable grade IIIB injury would be further defined by therapy-resistant scapular dysfunction and an overriding clavicle on the cross-body adduction view.