Surgical techniques for management of acromioclavicular joint separations: review and update for radiologists

Suture Button Could Result in More Functional Outcomes Improvement and Pain Relief Than Hook Plate Technique for Treating Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

PURPOSE

To systematically review the current evidence to compare the differences in outcomes of the suture button (SB) versus hook plate (HP) fixations for treating acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation (ACD).

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A literature search of the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases was performed and Level I-IV evidence studies comparing the SB and HP procedures for acute ACD were included. Studies that met the following exclusion criteria were excluded: (1) letters, comments, case reports, reviews, animal studies, cadaveric studies, biomechanical studies, and study protocols; (2) incomplete data; and (3) repeated studies and data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of nonrandomized studies. Constant score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, operation time, coracoclavicular distance (CCD), and complications were recorded and the mean differences of VAS and Constant were compared with preset minimal clinically important difference.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 363 patients treated with SB procedures and 432 patients with the HP procedure were included. In terms of patient-reported outcomes, 5 of the 13 included studies reported significantly greater Constant score in SB group and most (4/5) used arthroscopic SB technique. Statistically significant differences in favor of SB were found in 3 of the 7 included studies in terms of VAS score whereas none of them reached the minimal clinically important difference. In terms of recurrent instability, no statistically significant difference was noted. All studies showed that the SB technique resulted in lower estimated blood loss. No difference was detected in CCD and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current body of evidence, it is suggested that employment of the SB technique may confer advantageous outcomes when compared to the HP technique in acute ACD patients. These potential benefits may include higher Constant scores, lower pain levels, and no discernible increases in operation time, CCD, or complication rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

Does Weaver-Dunn procedure have a role in chronic acromioclavicular dislocations? A meta-analysis

Background

In treatment of chronic acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations, both the Weaver–Dunn procedure (WD) and CC ligament reconstruction (CCR) are recommended options due to the low possibility of healing of the coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments. The aim of this review was to determine whether CCR will yield favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes in the treatment of chronic AC dislocations.

Method

The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched for literature on chronic AC dislocations from data inception to June 30, 2021. Patient data were pooled using standard meta-analytic approaches. The Cochrane-Mantel–Haenszel method and variance-weighted means were used to analyze the outcomes. The Review Manager version 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to calculate the heterogenicity, mean difference, and relative risk (RR) for all outcomes in the meta-analysis.

Results

The current analysis included four trials on this topic, and all AC joint dislocations were classified as Rockwood types III to VI. The pooled data showed that the CCR group had significantly better post-operative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (ASES) scores, Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSSs), and Nottingham Clavicle Scores (NCSs) than the WD group, with a significant difference (p < 0.001, p = 0.020, and p < 0.001, respectively). In terms of the post-operative Constant-Murley Scores (CMSs), there were no significant differences between the CCR group and the WD group (p = 0.100). The CCR group had significantly better post-operative abduction and flexion of the index shoulder than the WD group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). In terms of radiological outcomes, the post-operative coracoclavicular distance (CCD) with a 10 kg load was smaller in the CCR group compared to that in the WD group (p < 0.001). The overall surgical wound infection rate was 11.6% in the WD group and 12.9% in the CCR, respectively (p = 0.82).

Conclusion

The CCR group had better clinical outcome scores in the ASES, OOS, NCS, abduction, flexion, and external rotation than the WD group. In terms of radiological outcomes, the CCR group showed less displacement in weight-loaded post-CCD than the WD group, which indicated that the CCR provided more stability and resistance to deformation forces.