Surgery for Acromioclavicular Dislocation: Factors Affecting Functional Recovery

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.

Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety in Treating Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation with Five Different Surgical Procedures: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of suture anchors (SA), tendon grafts (TG), hook plates (HP), Tight-Rope (TR), and EndoButton (EB) in the treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation. The Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception date to June 3, 2022. Studies included all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with the comparison of five different fixation systems among SA, TG, HP, TR, and EB were identified. All studies were reviewed, performed data extraction, and assessed the risk of bias independently by two reviewers. The primary outcomes are Constant-Murley score (CMS) improvement for assessing clinical efficacy, and complications. The second outcomes are visual analog scale (VAS) for assessing pain relief and the coracoclavicular distance (CCD) for assessing postoperative joint reduction. Version 2 of the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) were used to assess the RCTs and non-randomized trials, respectively. The continuous outcomes were presented as mean differences (MD), and risk ratios (OR) were used for dichotomous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) results were calculated to offer a ranking of each intervention. We identified 31 eligible trials, including 1687 patients in total. HP showed less CMS improvement than TR and EB in both the Network Meta-analysis (NMA) and pairwise meta-analysis. HP also showed less CMS improvement than SA in NMA. For pain relief, HP performed worse than TR both in pairwise meta-analysis and NMA. No significant differences were found for the measured value of CCD. Both TR and EB showed a lower incidence of complications than HP in pairwise meta-analysis. The rank of SUCRA for CMS improvement was as follows: SA, TR, EB, TG, and HP; for pain relief: TR, EB, TG, SA, and HP; for CCD: HP, TR, SA, EB, and TG. For complications, HP showed the highest rank, followed by TG, EB, TR, and SA. SA shows better clinical effectiveness and reliable safety in the treatment of acute ACJ dislocation. Although HP is the most widely used surgical option currently, it should be carefully taken into consideration for its high incidence of complications.

No difference in clinical outcome at 2-year follow-up in patients with type III and V acromioclavicular joint dislocation treated with hook plate or physiotherapy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The need for operative treatment of acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocation is unclear. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the outcomes after operative treatment with a hook plate with the outcomes after nonoperative treatment of acute Rockwood type III and type V AC joint dislocations separately.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were patients aged 18-65 years with an acute type III or type V AC joint dislocation with the availability to start treatment within 3 weeks after trauma. All patients received the same standardized outpatient rehabilitation protocol and were followed up for 24 months. Assessments were based on radiographs, clinical examination findings, and questionnaires. The primary outcome was the Constant score (CS). The secondary outcomes were as follows: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), QuickDASH score (abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire), shoulder pain at rest and during movement rated using a visual analog scale, EQ-5D (European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions) score, patient satisfaction, cosmesis, complications, and adverse events. The 4 groups were compared using 1-way analysis of variance and intention to treat.

RESULTS

The included patients (N = 124) (mean age, 40 years [range, 18-64 years]; 91% male patients) were randomized, stratified by type, to nonoperative treatment (type III, n = 33; type V, n = 30) or operative treatment with a hook plate (type III, n = 30; type V, n = 31) at a single center. Three patients randomized to physiotherapy dropped out before any follow-up measures, leaving 121 patients in the study. Complete clinical follow-up data were obtained from 118 patients at 24 months. At 3 months, patients in both nonoperatively treated groups had a significantly better mean CS, SSV, and QuickDASH score and had less pain at rest and during movement compared with patients treated operatively. At 6, 12, and 24 months, there were no significant differences in the CS, SSV, QuickDASH score, pain, or EQ-5D score between the groups regardless of intervention. At 24 months, the mean CS was 88 for nonoperatively treated type III patients vs. 91 for operatively treated type III patients and was 90 vs. 91 for type V patients (P = .477). At final follow-up, patients had regained 97% of the mean CS comparing the uninjured and injured shoulders and 86% of the patients rated the result as excellent or good. Eleven patients assigned to nonoperative treatment (18%, 6 type III and 5 type V) underwent surgery within 19 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the nonoperative and operative treatment groups had very good restoration of shoulder function and patient satisfaction at 24 months, and operative treatment did not lead to better outcomes compared with nonoperative treatment. In conclusion, our study does not support surgery with a hook plate in patients with acute Rockwood type III or type V AC joint dislocations.

Suture Button Versus Hook Plate for Acute Unstable Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment is indicated for unstable acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocation. The hook plate (HP) technique is a commonly used treatment method, but the use of the suture button (SB) technique is increasing.

PURPOSE

To conduct a meta-analysis of clinical studies evaluating patient outcomes between the SB and HP techniques for acute unstable AC joint dislocation.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search of the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Cohort studies and case-control studies comparing the SB and HP procedures for acute unstable AC joint dislocation were included. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan (v 5.3.5).

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified and included a total of 204 patients treated with the SB technique and 195 patients with the HP technique. Patients treated with the SB technique had a higher Constant score (mean difference [MD], 3.95; 95% CI, 1.20-6.70; P = .005) and a lower visual analog scale pain score (MD, -0.75; 95% CI, -1.12 to 0.37; P < .0001) when compared with the HP technique. No significant differences in operation time (MD, -0.38; 95% CI, -7.14 to 6.37; P = .91), coracoclavicular distance (MD, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.35; P = .75), complications (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.22-1.54; P = .28), and loss of reduction (odds ratio, 2.55; 95% CI, 0.66-9.83; P = .17) were found between the SB and HP techniques. The subgroup analysis showed that the arthroscopic SB technique resulted in a higher Constant score (MD, 6.75; 95% CI, 4.21-9.29; P < .00001) as compared with the HP technique, but no differences were observed between the open SB and HP techniques (MD, 0.69; 95% CI, -0.82 to 2.20; P = .37).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that the SB technique resulted in better functional outcomes and a reduced visual analog scale pain score when compared with the HP technique. However, for operation time, coracoclavicular distance, complications, and loss of reduction, there were no statistically significant differences between the techniques. Compared with the open procedure, arthroscopic SB may be superior for better functional outcomes.