Dergiler / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 6

Open double-button technique is superior to hook plate in the treatment of acute Rockwood Type III/V acromioclavicular dislocations

Sayfa
839–848
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-08
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Therefore, the open DB technique should be preferential to the HP procedure.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare open double-button (DB) and hook plate (HP) techniques in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation (ACJD) in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes and to determine which method is superior.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:METHODS: This retrospective comparative study included patients with ACJDs (Rockwood Type III/V) who were treated with one of these implants (22 patients with HP, 21 patients with DB) between June 2014 and February 2018.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Therefore, the open DB technique should be preferential to the HP procedure.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2014 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare open double-button (DB) and hook plate (HP) techniques in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation (ACJD) in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes and to determine which method is superior. METHODS: This retrospective comparative study included patients with ACJDs (Rockwood Type III/V) who were treated with one of these implants (22 patients with HP, 21 patients with DB) between June 2014 and February 2018. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients (39 men and 4 women) with a mean age of 41.8±17.4 years have participated in this study. The mean follow-up time was 20.6±7.5 months. Mean times of fluoroscopy, operation, and return to work were shorter in the DB group. Compli- cation rates were 23.8% and 54.6%, reoperation rates (including mandatory implant removals [IR]) were 4.8% and 77.3%, mean constant scores were 92.1±3.4 and 88.3±4.2, and mean Visual Analog Scale scores were 0.8±1.0 and 1.5±1.0 for the DB and HP groups, respec- tively. IR was the main reason for reoperations in the HP group, whereas the DB group’s only reoperation was caused by a coracoid cutout (due to coracoid tunnel malposition) leading to redislocation. AC joint arthritis (36.4%) and subacromial osteolysis (31.9%) were com- monly encountered in the HP group. The most frequent complication of the DB group was malreduction (initial undercorrection) (9.6%). CONCLUSION: DB was superior to HP in functional outcome, post-operative pain, complication and reoperation rates, operation and fluoroscopy times, and time to return to work. Besides, reoperation (for IR) was needed in most of the HP patients. Therefore, the open DB technique should be preferential to the HP procedure.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Yapici, F., Ucpunar, H., Gur, V., Sevencan, A., Kizilay, Y. O., Karakose, R., Camurcu, Y. (2022). Open double-button technique is superior to hook plate in the treatment of acute Rockwood Type III/V acromioclavicular dislocations. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 6, 839–848. https://ajindex.com/articles/655437

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Gorbaty JD, Hsu JE, Gee AO. Classifications in brief: Rockwood clas- sification of acromioclavicular joint separations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017;475:283–7
  2. Li Q, Hsueh P, Chen Y. Coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Medicine (Baltimore) 2014;93:e193
  3. Rieser GR, Edwards K, Gould GC, Markert RJ, Goswami T, Rubino LJ. Distal-third clavicle fracture fixation: A biomechanical evaluation of fixa- tion. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2013;22:848–55
  4. Oussedik S. Injuries to the clavicle and acromioclavicular joint. Br J Hosp Med 2007;68:M68–70
  5. Willimon SC, Gaskill TR, Millett PJ. Acromioclavicular joint injuries: Anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment. Phys Sportsmed 2011;39:116–22
  6. Chillemi C, Franceschini V, Dei Giudici L, Alibardi A, Santone FS, Al- day LJ, et al. Epidemiology of isolated acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Emerg Med Int 2013;2013:1–5
  7. Cho CH, Hwang I, Seo JS, Choi CH, Ko SH, Park HB, et al. Reliability of the classification and treatment of dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2014;23:665–70
  8. Rockwood CJ, Green D. Injuries to the acromioclavicular joint. In: Rock- wood CJ, editor. Fractures in Adults. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippin- cott; 1984. p. 860–910
  9. Tauber M. Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: Current concepts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013;133:985–95
  10. Smith TO, Chester R, Pearse EO, Hing CB. Operative versus non-oper- ative management following Rockwood grade III acromioclavicular sepa- ration: A meta-analysis of the current evidence base. J Orthop Traumatol 2011;12:19–27
  11. Ponce BA, Millett PJ, Warner JJ. Acromioclavicular joint instabili- ty-reconstruction indications and techniques. Oper Tech Sports Med 2004;12:35–42
  12. Cote MP, Wojcik KE, Gomlinski G, Mazzocca AD. Rehabilitation of acromioclavicular joint separations: Operative and nonoperative consid- erations. Clin Sports Med 2010;29:213–28
  13. Horst K, Dienstknecht T, Andruszkow H, Gradl G, Kobbe P, Pape HC. Radiographic changes in the operative treatment of acute acromioclav- icular joint dislocation-tight rope technique vs. K-wire fixation. Polish J Radiol 2013;78:15–20
  14. Esenyel CZ, Öztürk K, Bülbül M, Ayanoğlu S, Ceylan HH. Coracoclav- icular ligament repair and screw fixation in acromioclavicular disloca- tions. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2010;44:194–8
  15. Mares O, Luneau S, Staquet V, Beltrand E, Bousquet PJ, Maynou C. Acute grade III and IV acromioclavicular dislocations: Outcomes and pi