Author:
Wang Yafei,Ren Chengzhen,Niu Junqi,Cao Le,Yang Can,Bi Fanggang,Tian Ke
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
To compare the clinical efficacy of arthroscopic TightRope loop titanium button and clavicular hook plate in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation of Rockwood III/IV.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of patients with ACJ dislocation in our hospital from January 2018 to December 2020 was conducted. The patients were assigned to be treated with arthroscopic TightRope loop titanium button (TR group) or clavicular hook plate (HP group). The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data and imaging findings of the two groups were compared.
Results
A total of 58 eligible patients were enrolled in this study. Compared with HP group, TR group had shorter incision length and less blood loss during operation. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 12 to 24 months (mean 15.4 months). At 6 months and 12months postoperatively, compared with HP group, TR group had lower VAS and higher CMS, and the difference was statistically significant. At 12 months postoperatively, compared with HP group, TR group had lower ACJ gap and coracoclavicular joint(CCJ) distance, and the difference was statistically significant.In HP group, there were 3 cases of subacromial impact, 1 case of redislocation, 2 cases of traumatic arthritis and 2 cases of wound infection. There was 1 case of redislocation in TR group.
Conclusions
Compared with clavicular hook plate, arthroscopic TightRope loop titanium button is minimally invasive, safe and effective in the treatment of ACJ dislocation, and has a good trend in clinical application.
Funder
the Youth Fund of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University
the key scientific research projects of colleges and universities in Henan Province in 2022
the key scientific and technological projects in Henan province in 2020
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference31 articles.
1. Kim AC, Matcuk G, Patel D, Itamura J, Forrester D, White E, Gottsegen CJ. Acromioclavicular joint injuries and reconstructions: a review of expected imaging findings and potential complications. Emerg Radiol. 2012;19(5):399–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-012-1053-0.
2. Gültaç E, Can F, Kılınç C Y, Aydoğmuş H, Topsakal FE, Açan AE, Aydogan NH. Comparison of the radiological and functional results of tight rope and clavicular hook plate technique in the treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. J Invest Surg. 2022;35(3):693–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2021.1897196.
3. Pallis M, Cameron KL, Svoboda SJ, Owens BD. Epidemiology of acromioclavicular joint injury in young athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(9):2072–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512450162.
4. Tossy JD, Mead NC, Sigmond HM. Acromioclavicular separations: useful and practical classification for treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1963;28:111–9.
5. Jakobsen BW. Acromioclavicular dislocation. Conservative or surgical treatment? Ugeskr Laeger. 1989;151(4):235–8.