Anatomic ligament consolidation of the superior acromioclavicular ligament and the coracoclavicular ligament complex after acute arthroscopically assisted double coracoclavicular bundle stabilization

PURPOSE

The consolidation of the acromioclavicular (AC) and coracoclavicular (CC) ligament complex after arthroscopically assisted stabilization of acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) separation is still under consideration.

METHODS

Fifty-five consecutive patients after arthroscopically assisted double-CC-bundle stabilization within 14 days after acute high-grade ACJ separation were studied prospectively. All patients were clinically analysed preoperatively (FU0) and post-operatively (FU1 = 6 months; FU2 = 12 months). The structural MRI assessments were performed at FU0 (injured ACJ) and at FU2 bilateral (radiologic control group) and assessed separately the ligament thickness and length at defined regions for the conoid, trapezoid and the superior AC ligament.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were assessed after 6.5 months and after 16.0 months. The 16-month MRI analysis revealed for all patients continuous ligament healing for the CC-complex and the superior AC ligament with in the average hypertrophic consolidation compared to the control side. Separate conoid and trapezoid strands (double-strand configuration) were detected in 27 of 37 (73%) patients, and a single-strand configuration was detected in 10 of 37 (27%) patients; both configurations showed similar CCD data. The ligament healing was not influenced by the point of surgery, age at surgery and heterotopic ossification. The clinical outcome was increased (FU0-FU2): Rowe, 47.7-97.0 pts.; TAFT, 3.9-10.6 pts.; NAS _pain, 8.9-1.4 pts. (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopically assisted double-CC-bundle stabilization within 14 days after acute high-grade ACJ separation showed 16 months after surgery sufficient consolidations of the AC and double-CC ligament complex in 73%.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, Case series.

Different treatment strategies for acromioclavicular dislocation injuries: a nationwide survey on open/minimally invasive and arthroscopic concepts

Background

Injuries to the acromioclavicular (AC) joint are one of the most common among sporting injuries of the upper extremity. Several studies investigated different treatment options comparing surgical and non-surgical treatment, and type of operative interventions. This study aims to evaluate treatment decisions regarding injuries of the AC joint and to compare different treatment strategies depending on the specific training of the treating physician.

Methods

We performed a nationwide survey by contacting different experienced physicians and sending them questionnaires. The questionnaire included 37 questions that assessed preferred treatment strategies in AC joint injuries. We addressed different surgical and nonsurgical options as well as level of experience and factors that might influence the decision on treatment strategy. The physicians were stratified according to their training into general surgeons (group trauma associated) and orthopedic surgeons (orthopedic associated). The AC joint lesions were categorized according to the widely used Rockwood classification.

Results

This study analyses 96 questionnaires. We included 46 (47.9%) colleagues in group trauma and 50 (52.1%) in group orthopedics. Most of the colleagues (98.9%) prefer non-operative treatment of type I and type II AC lesions. Similarly, 96.8% agree on surgical treatment of types IV, V, and VI lesions. The treatment of type III lesions is performed in 41.6% of cases non-operatively and in 58.4% of cases surgically. Trauma-associated colleagues are 3.4 times more likely to treat AC lesions with a hook plate compared to orthopedic-associated colleagues (p = 0.05). In decreasing order, the most commonly used non-surgical technique is sling immobilization (63.7%), and the most commonly performed surgical treatment is the hook plate (41.1%) in treating type III injuries.

Conclusion

This study shows a distinct difference in treatment of AC joint injuries depending on the training of the physician. Further, the need for high-quality studies arises to define the optimal treatment of type III lesions.

Return to sport after acute acromioclavicular stabilization: a randomized control of double-suture-button system versus clavicular hook plate compared to uninjured shoulder sport athletes

PURPOSE

Traumatic high-grade acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) separations can be surgically stabilized by numerous anatomic and non-anatomic procedures. The return to sport (Maffe et al. in Am J Sports Med 23:93-98, 1995] and remaining sport-associated impairments after acute ACJ stabilization has not yet been investigated.

METHODS

73 consecutive athletes with acute high-grade ACJ separation were prospectively assigned into two groups (64.4% randomized, 35.6% intention-to-treat): open clavicular hook plate (cHP) implantation (GI) or arthroscopically assisted double double-suture-button (dDSB) implantation (GII). Patients were analyzed using shoulder sport-specific measurement tools for sport ability (ASOSS), sport activity (SSAS), and numerical analog scales: NAS_{pain during sport}, NAS_{shoulder function in sport}, and NAS_{re-achievement of sport level}. Four points of examination were established: preoperative evaluation (FU0) and first postoperative follow-up (FU1) at 6 months; FU2 at 12 months; and FU3 at 24 months after surgery. The control group (GIII) consisted of 140 healthy athletes without anamnesis of prior macro-injury or surgery.

RESULTS

After surgical stabilization, 29 of 35 athletes in GI (82.9%; 38.6 ± 9.9 years) and 32 of 38 in GII (82.9%; 38.6 ± 9.9 years) were followed up for 24 months (FU3) (loss 17.8%). All operated athletes showed significantly increased scores compared to FU0 (p < 0.05). Compared to GI, GII showed significantly superior outcome data for sporting ability as well as for NAS_{re-achievement of sport level} (p < 0.05). While GII re-achieved GIII-comparable SSAS and ASOSS levels, GI remained at a significantly inferior level. Athletes after ACJ injury of Rockwood grade IV/V and overhead athletes benefited significantly from the dDSB procedure.

CONCLUSION

The dDSB procedure enabled significantly superior sport-specific outcomes compared to the cHP procedure. Athletes after dDSB surgeries re-achieved the sporting ability and the sport activity levels of healthy athletes, whereas athletes after cHP implantation remained at significantly inferior levels. The more extensive dDSB procedure and the more restrictive rehabilitation are recommended for treatment of acute high-grade ACJ separations of functionally high-demanding athletes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.