Open Access

Modified closed‑loop double‑endobutton technique for repair of rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation

  • Authors:
    • Lei Zhang
    • Xin Zhou
    • Ji Qi
    • Yan Zeng
    • Shaoqun Zhang
    • Gang Liu
    • Ruiyue Ping
    • Yikai Li
    • Shijie Fu
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: November 10, 2017     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.5487
  • Pages:940-948
  • Copyright: © Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: HTML 0 views | PDF 0 views     Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations

Abstract

Acromioclavicular dislocation (ACD) is a common injury. According to the Rockwood classification, ACD is classified into six types (type I‑VI); however, for type III injuries, it remains controversial whether or not operative treatment should be applied. Numerous studies have advocated early surgical treatment to ensure early rehabilitation activities. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate a modified closed‑loop double‑endobutton technique (MCDT), that may be used to repair Rockwood type III ACD. In the current study, 61 patients with Rockwood type III ACD were enrolled during a period of 5 years at the Affiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Southwest Medical University. Patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical method used, the MCDT group (n=20), the common closed‑loop double‑endobutton technique (CCDT) group (n=21), and the clavicular hook plate fixation (CHPF) group (n=20). Preoperative and intraoperative information were recorded. Furthermore, the functional scores of injured shoulder were evaluated prior to surgery and following surgery with a 1‑year follow‑up. Among the three groups, postoperative functional scores were significantly more improved compared with those prior to surgery (P<0.05), and no significant difference was observed regarding the coracoclavicular interval with the 1‑year follow‑up (P>0.05). Postoperative functional scores in the MCDT and CCDT groups were significantly more improved compared those in the CHPF group (P<0.05). In addition, the duration of surgery in the MCDT group was significantly shorter compared with that in the CCDT group (P<0.05). Furthermore, compared with the CHPF group, the incision length was significantly shorter with reduced hemorrhage in the MCDT group (P<0.05). In conclusion, the results of the current study suggest that MCDT is more simple, convenient and efficient compared with CCDT, and is worth popularizing.

Introduction

The acromioclavicular (AC) joint injury is a common orthopedic problem that accounts for 12% of shoulder injuries (1). Despite its prevalence, the lack of consensus regarding its diagnosis and treatment makes it one of the most controversial shoulder injuries (2,3). Firstly, Tossy et al (4) classified AC joint injury into types I, II, and III. Then, Rockwood et al (5) expanded the classification to types IV, V, and VI. The expanded classification recognized a variety of complete AC dislocation (ACD). According to the Rockwood classification, ACD is classified into types I–VI (6). The Rockwood classification system is very important for surgeons to accurately diagnose AC joint injuries and is used in the literature to guide nonoperative vs. operative management (710). Rockwood type I, II could be cured by expectant treatment, while the ACD of Rockwood types IV, V, and VI always requires surgical intervention. However, it remains controversial for type III injury whether to take operative treatment or not. Numerous biomechanical studies in recent years have led to the development of surgical techniques that stabilize the AC joint complex with fixation that more closely approximates the natural anatomic structure (1114). Currently, many operative treatments for type III injury are effective, such as clavicular hook plate fixation (CHPF), kirschner wires tension band fixation, reconstruction of coracoclavicular ligaments, and so on (1518). However, the complications of surgery, including looseness of internal fixation, postoperative pain of shoulder, restricted joint motion and recrudescence of joint dislocation after removing internal fixation, is still an important issue (1924).

Treatment of the ACD of Rockwood type III is particularly challenging for surgeons (2529). The endobutton technique has been used for patients and is worthy of popularization (3032). At present, the hook plate is currently used by 44% of all surgeons (33). But injury to the shoulder was worse. Compared with hook plate in the treatment of the ACD of Rockwood type III, the endobutton technique showed better short-term results with regard to complications and could be used effectively in the treatment. Biomechanical studies in recent years have demanded stabilization of the AC joint complex with fixation that more closely approximates the natural anatomic structure (3436), and the double-endobutton technique could be compatible with anatomic structure. In a clinical study, there were no significant differences in the mean incision length, blood loss, the operative and radiation time, length of hospitalization, the Constant and VAS scores, and ability to return to previous work between a double endobutton group and triple endobutton group, and the triple endobutton treatment had higher hospital costs (37). Hu et al (38) explored the clinical efficacy of double endobutton reconstitution of the coracoclavicular ligament combined with repair of the acromioclavicular ligament in stage I in treating ACD with Rockwood type III–V, which suggested good early results. In fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremeties, Struhl et al (39) compared the stability of a novel closed-loop double-endobutton construct with a commercially available cortical button system in both the axial and superior directions and they suggested closed-loop double-endobutton construct provided good stability. In addition, Struhl and Wolfson (40) made a mean follow-up of 5.2 years for 35 patients who got a closed-loop double-endobutton technique to reconstruct both acute and chronic dislocations (Rockwood type III) and they suggested that this technique was a low-profile, durable fixation device that maintained a stable AC joint, which allowing enough time for strong soft tissue healing to develop. It was reported that arthroscopy seem to have a lower rate of residual postoperative pain and postoperative recurrence (40). We modified common closed-loop double-endobutton technique by shoulder arthroscopy, which would provide a better treatment for ACD patients.

The application of double-endobutton reconstruction in patients with ACD has significantly reduced the postoperative complications (35,41). Also, the effect on Rockwood type III has been confirmed (4244). At the same time, the improvement of double-endobutton reconstruction is always ongoing, aiming at simplifying the surgical procedures, strengthening the internal fixation, and reducing the complications. With the rapid development of arthroscopic technique, we modified common closed-loop double-endobutton technique (CCDT) to treat ACD by shoulder arthroscopy. Based on replacement and stabilization of the AC joint, the modified closed-loop double-endobutton technique (MCDT) was more simple, convenient and efficient than CCDT, and was worth popularizing.

The ACD of Rockwood type III, the coracoclavicular ligament is ruptured completely, the stability of the acromioclavicular joint on the vertical direction is lost, and the distal clavicle is shifted upwards, that causes shoulder joint pain, swelling, and even restricted movement. In the present study, MCDT was used to treat the ACD of Rockwood type III, two endobutton with loops were prepared, two loops were tied together, making a closed-loop slipknot between two endobuttons. The total length of the loops that was made before procedure, was approximately equal to CC-interval in uninjured side shoulder. The modified closed-loop double-endobutton was implanted in injured side by arthroscopy technique, so the ACD of Rockwood type III was restored, and it provided a stable environment, which was beneficial to early activities and recovery.

The present study still had some limitations. For example: Firstly, all cases enrolled were from the same hospital but not a multi-center study. Secondly, the length of the loops was be determined by CC-interval in uninjured side shoulder, which maybe ignore the difference between the left and right side. Thirdly, the radiographic distance maybe were little erroneous.

In order to evaluate the clinical efficacy and recovery of the MCDT, we conducted a study in comparison with other surgical procedures, including CCDT and CHPF. By comparing the three groups, the advantages of MCDT were known, and it provided evidence and support for clinical extensive application.

Materials and methods

Inclusion standards

Cases were enrolled according to such inclusion criteria: i) Patients were diagnosed as acute ACD without course of exceeding 7 days before surgical treatment. ii) The shoulder was injuried with one side. iii) It was confirmed that injury belonged to Rockwood type III by CT or MRI. iv) Patients completely understood operation and expectant treatment and signed operative informed consent, doctor-patient communication consent and implantable informed consent. v) Patients had a follow-up of more than 1 year.

Exclusion standards

Other cases would be excluded with such criteria: i) Patients had an injury longer than 7 days before surgery. ii) Patients had serious associated injuries, such as clavicular fracture, coracoid fracture, or other fracture in shoulder. iii) Patients suffered from open shoulder injuries that would be infected easily. iv) Patients had anatomic variation of coracoid in shoulder. v) Patients had associated injuries of brachial plexus. vi) Patients had serious shoulder swelling or other injuries that affected operations. vii) Patients had special diseases of tumor, poisoning, infection and visceral organ failure. viii) Patients had a follow-up of less than 1 year. ix)Patients who were attending other project would not be enrolled.

Patients and ethic

All procedures were approved by the Ethical Committee of Affiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Southwest Medical University (no. 2016060518) and registry of clinical trial (ChiCTR-ORC-16008438), and performed in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the present study. A total of 61 cases were enrolled from January 2010 to December 2014 in affiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Southwest Medical University.

Grouping

There were 3 kinds of operation methods chosen by patients, in terms of 3 kinds of operation methods, the enrolled patients were divided into 3 groups, MCDT group (n=20), CCDT group (n=21), CHPF group (n=20). Each group underwent surgical treatment by one of three types of operations separately. All surgeries were completed by the same senior surgeons in our hospital. In addition, the main injury reasons contained traffic accident (22 cases), tension injury during exercise (20 cases), falling injury (10 cases) and heavy pound injury (3 cases).

Detection index and methods

Before operation, there was no significant difference in general data of sex, age, injured side, arm dominance, time interval from injury to surgery and shoulder functional scores, including Constant-Murley Score (CMS), University of California at Los Angeles shoulder rating scale (UCLA), rating scale of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) (4548) and coracoclavicular interval (CC-interval) before surgery was noticed among three groups (P>0.05) (Tables I and II). Meanwhile, operative time, incision lengths and intraoperative hemorrhage were observed as surgical index. And multiple validated measures were collected before and after 1 years, including CMS, UCLA, ASES, OSS, and CC-interval.

Table I.

Baseline data of all patients.

Table I.

Baseline data of all patients.

CharacteristicMCDTCCDTCHPF
Sex
  Male (N)121313
  Female (N)887
Age (years)30.25±7.4129.90±6.9830.55±8.04
Injured side
  Right (N)111210
  Left (N)9910
Arm dominance
  Right (N)191919
  Left (N)121
Injured time (days)3.85±0.813.86±0.793.95±0.76

[i] In three groups, compared each indicator P>0.05.

Table II.

Functional rating and CC-interval before surgery.

Table II.

Functional rating and CC-interval before surgery.

GroupCase(N)CMSUCLAASESOSSCC-interval (mm)
MCDT20 46.50±2.16 14.65±1.31 44.15±2.54 45.25±3.01 16.77±0.91
CCDT21 46.52±1.94 14.76±1.18 44.57±2.29 44.62±3.37 16.70±0.77
CHPF20 46.55±2.31 14.70±1.17 44.25±2.55 45.20±3.25 16.83±0.75

[i] In three groups, compared each indicator P>0.05.

Preoperative preparation

First of all, CC-interval of all patients in both shoulders were measured under radiographs (Fig. 1). In MCDT group, two endobutton (titanium alloy, 4×12 mm, Smith&Nephew, USA) with loops were prepared (Fig. 2). Then, one of endobuttons' loop was penetrated into another endobutton's loop. Later, the former endobutton was reflected into its own loop which had passed through another endobutton's loop before. Finally, two endobuttons were strained from two opposite direction, making a closed-loop slipknot between two endobuttons, which was the modified closed-loop double-endobutton (Fig. 2A and C). The total length of the loops that was made before was approximately equal to CC-interval in uninjured side shoulder of the same patient. After that, non-absorption braided tendon sutures (Johnson, USA) were loaded into the first and fourth holes on plates separately as lead wires.

In CCDT group, single-endonbutton with a loop was prepared at first. Then non-absorption tendon sutures (Johnson, USA) were pierced into the first and fourth holes on plates separately as lead wires, which was single-endobutton with a loop (Fig. 2B and D). At the same time, the other sutures fixed on the loop. Also another endonbutton without loops was prepared. The diameter of loops was 4.5 mm and the length of loops was equal to CC-interval in uninjured shoulder at the same patient.

In CHPF group, the clavicular hook plate (titanium alloy, AO, Switzerland) was chosen before surgery.

Surgical process of MCDT

Under general anesthesia in beach chair position, almost with angle of 70 degree between horizontal line and the upper part of the body. Trunk, limbs and head were fixed and surgical incisions were marked before the procedure (Fig. 3A). The arthroscopic instruments (72200616, Smith & Nephew, USA) were prepared before operation, the instruments were strictly sterilized by operators. Then, the patients were anesthetized and were sterilized on surgical area. The shoulder joint was examined under anesthesia, and small incisions were made around the joint, the scope and surgical instruments would go into these incisions. The scope was inserted into the shoulder joint, saline solution flowed through a tube and into the shoulder capsule to expand the joint and to improve visualization. The image was sent to a video monitor where the surgeon could see inside the joint. Planer tool was inserted from anterior-lateral approach, with the scope was inserted from lateral approach, in order to remove partial plica that could cause pain and to expose clearly coracoid base, the guiding locator (Fig. 3B) was inserted from the anterior-medial approach and located on the center of base of the coracoid and the center of upper surface of clavicle, passing 2-mm kirschner wires between these two point. A hole was drilled in the top of the clavicle midway between the anterior and posterior borders and directly in line with the base of the coracoid, the tunnel was drilled over guide wire with the same diameter as the loop. By using a grasper, the lead wires were inserted from coracoid tunnel into clavicle tunnel and penetrated out the top of clavicle tunnel finally. Then the modified closed-loop double-endobutton would be inserted. One of endobuttons was taken from clavicle tunnel to the base of coracoid tunnel. While pushing the distal clavicle downwards, the lower endobutton was fixed on the base of coracoid, and the upper endobutton was fixed on the top of clavicle. Finally ACD was repaired (Fig. 4A and B). After that, the lead sutures on endobutton were drawn out, the surgical instruments were removed and the procedure was completed, the proper location of AC joint was confirmed through arthroscopy, the incision was cleaned and sutured finally.

Surgical process of CCDT

The selection of body position and process of arthroscopic examination and establishing bone tunnel were same as MCDT. Prepared single-endobutton with a loop was taken into base of coracoid tunnel and was fixed on the base of coracoid. And the loop on the single-endobutton was pulled out clavicle tunnel at the same time, leaving empty place for the single-endobutton without loops. After pushing distal clavicle downwards for qualified reconstruction, the single-endobutton without loops was placed in the loop on top of the clavicle. Then the loop was locked by two knotted sutures from the second to third and the first to fourth holes on the single-endobutton without loops and the lead sutures from the single-endobutton with a loop was also drawn out (Fig. 4C and D). At the end, the proper location of AC joint was confirmed through arthroscopy, the incisions were cleaned and sutured by layers finally.

Surgical process of CHPF

In supine position, after general anesthesia, patients were made an arc incision from middle part of clavicle to acromion with 7–9 cm, exposing AC joint. Intervening soft tissues were removed in the AC joint and the operative vision were cleared completely later. Then the prepared plate was moulded as the shape of clavicle, and was inserted on the top of the AC joint. The holes were drilled and the screws were inserted. Finally, the incisions were cleaned and sutured.

Postoperative treatment

Operated shoulder was rested in a sling for 4 weeks. Functional exercises were started 3 days after operation. Passive exercises began in 4 weeks. Active movement of the shoulder and resistant exercises were allowed after 4 to 12 weeks. Strenuous exercises were avoided during first three months following surgery. The time of using injury-side sling and functional exercise were extended for patients whose healing was slow. At first, all patients reviewed clinical postoperative examination at 2, 3, 6 months. Afterwards, they were required to get follow-up examination every 6 months. Removal of the internal fixations was not necessary in MCDT and CCDT group, while it was essential to remove internal fixations in CHPF group 1 year after surgery depending on the process of recovery.

Statistical analysis

The Pearson chi-square test and Fisher exact test were used to compare categorical outcomes. The paired t test was used to compare the functional scores and CC-interval after the operation with those before operation. And the one-way ANOVA was used to compare the functional scores and CC-interval among three groups. The level of statistical significance was set at P<0.05. All data were analyzed with the use of SPSS software (version 20, IBM Corp). Results are expressed as the mean ± SD unless otherwise specified.

Results

Surgical index

Firstly, the operative time of MCDT or CHPF group was significantly shorter than that of CCDT group (P<0.05). But no significant difference between MCDT and CHPF group (P>0.05). Secondly, the incision lengths of MCDT or CCDT group was significantly shorter than that of CHPF group (P<0.05). And no significant difference was noted between MCDT and CCDT group (P>0.05). Thirdly, the hemorrhage of MCDT or CCDT group was significantly less than that of CHPF group (P<0.05). And significant difference was noted between MCDT and CCDT group (P<0.05) (Table III).

Table III.

Comparison in surgical index among 3 groups.

Table III.

Comparison in surgical index among 3 groups.

GroupCase (N)Operation time (min)Length of cut (cm)Hemorrhage (ml)
MCDT20 77.00±8.18a 1.55±0.26b 52.00±8.18b
CCDT21 101.19±7.89 1.54±0.25b 75.24±11.23b
CHPF20 76.50±8.13a 8.98±0.65 140.00±18.64

a P<0.05 vs. CCDT group

b P<0.05 vs. CHPF group.

Follow-up outcome measurements

One year after surgery, the CMS, UCLA, ASES, OSS, CC-interval were superior to those before surgery in three groups (P<0.05). Secondly, all post-operation functional scores of MCDT or CCDT group were better than those of CHPF group (P<0.05). And no significant difference in mean functional scores was noted between MCDT and CCDT group (P>0.05). In addition, radiographic findings confirmed that no significant difference in CC-interval was visible among three groups after surgery (P>0.05). And the radiography of patients in three group showed satisfying operative effect after one year (Figs. 57).

Discussion

It had basically been obtained a consensus that the Rockwood type IV, V and VI injury should be treated with operation. However, the treatment of type III was still controversial (25,4952). Nowadays, it had been put forward more and more high demands to the range of shoulder motion and its flexibility, but there were so much uncertainty and instability about conservative treatment. As a consequence, great emphases were put on the operational treatments (5355). In addition, at present, the CHPF was the commonly recognized operation method with many advantages (5659), for example, the great histocompatibility, the anatomic design, attaching with distal clavicular, stable fixation, continuously pressurizing distal clavicular, keeping slight activity of AC joint and noninterference in the normal physiological structure of AC joint. Nevertheless, studies had been reported that the CHPF also showed many complications, including shoulder pain, subacromial inpingement, redislocation after extracting the internal fixation, even a stress fracture, and so on (6062). Moreover, the CHPF provided healing condition for the AC ligament, the AC ligament and the surrounding soft tissue, even though the healing scar could not ensure the stability of the activity after shoulder surgery. With the application of arthroscopy and double-endobutton, treatment of ACD of the Rockwood type III has entered into a new period.

The MCDT was to be improved on the basis of CCDT, making fixation more solid, simple, convenient and faster. Thus, it not only inherited the advantages of CCDT, but also had its own new superiority: ① The MCDT was in advance of making a closed-loop between two endobuttons, it could not only keep the integrity of the double-endobutton with loops, but also save the redundant steps of CCDT such as resetting, knoting and so on. The MCDT could achieve firm fixation to avoid the slip of sutures in CCDT, at the same time, reduce the operation time and blood loss effectively. ii) The minimally invasive surgical procedure was adopted, without exposing the AC joint in surgery, and the operation did not involve the rotator cuff, only 1.5-cm invasive incision was made minimally, and the incisions of arthroscopic conventional approach were no more than 1 cm, so it reduced blood loss and postoperative complications. Furthermore, it could deal with the associated injuries (rotator cuff injury, SLAP injury, Bankart injury, etc), and help patients with more satisfied recovery. iii) The AC joint was slightly movable joint attached with the surrounding ligaments and other soft tissue, in the procedure, the ACD was restored and AC ligament was reconstructed by the loop, the clavicle was fixed in the original anatomical position, that ensured the stability of shoulder joint. The AC joint was not used rigid fixation, so it could maintain a certain fretting, which ensured the soft tissue to heal in a stable environment, without any impingement-like pain and other complications in future and early postoperative functional exercise could be carried out. iv) When the bone tunnel of distal clavicle and coracoid was established in surgery, we applied the guiding locator which could accurately locate on the insertion of the coracoid base of AC ligament, avoiding the situation such as the iatrogenic fracture, the injury of nerves and vessels (63). v) The loop was provided by Pfizer, and it was said that the strength of the device was more than 40% of the body's ligaments (48). Meanwhile, it was an implantable material with advantageous biocompatibility, no degradation and long-term retention in the body, without removing internal fixation surgery and avoiding the possibility of recurrence of dislocation. Additionally, the following matters should also be payed attention to in the MCDT: i) Operators should control the contralateral the accurate measurement of CC-interval, to determine the length of the loop, and a few loops that were different lengths should be prepared before the surgery. ii) When coracoid tunnel was established, an optimal view should be found by arthroscopy in order to avoid the injury of brachial plexus and axillary arteries. Meanwhile, bone tunnel should be drilled an appropriate depth to keep the surrounding tissues from injury.

Firstly, CHPF for ACD had been applied for many years, which was a mature technology with widely application (64). In CHPF group, as a reference to compare with the MCDT group, any difference could not be found in statistically significant in operative time, but both the CHPF and MCDT group were better than the CCDT group, which indicated that surgical procedure of CCDT was relatively cumbersome, especially in resetting and fixing the endobutton on the top of clavicle, it was difficult for manipulation and took so much time. Secondly, in incision length, the MCDT and CCDT group were better than the CHPF group, because the arthroscopic incisions was minimally invasive. Thirdly, in intraoperative hemorrhage, the MCDT and CCDT group were better than CHPF group, Moreover, the MCDT group took less operation time than the CCDT group. mainly because that the MCDT and CCDT used minimally invasive surgery which reduced intraoperative hemorrhage, meanwhile the MCDT was to be improved on the basis of CCDT, making more convenient and faster. On the other hand, in the postoperative follow-up indicators, all groups were better than before surgery, and comparing the CC-interval value of the three groups after 1 year of follow-up, the difference was not statistically significant, which indicated three kinds of surgical methods were clinically effective. However, after 1 year follow-up, the MCDT and CCDT group were better than CHPF group, it associated with that large incision, soft tissue damage, the poor attachment of plate caused the limitation of shoulder mobility and the acromion impingement. On the contrary, few tissue damage was found around the shoulder joint with the MCDT, which was better for rehabilitating the shoulder joint at early stage.

However, the present study still has limitations. Firstly, all cases enrolled were from the same hospital but not multi-center study. Secondly, the total length of the loops was approximately equal to CC-interval in uninjured side shoulder, which maybe lead to ignore the physiological difference between the left and right side. Additionally, radiographic results were only measured in the vertical direction and did not account for displacement in the anteroposterior direction. In the following study, we will explore some more about it, consider some ways to modify the surgery. Moreover, related anatomic variation in AC joint also remained to be further studied. Only in these ways can we make a better contribution to clinical treatment for shoulder injury. Finally, in the present study, Rockwood type III ACD was suggested to receive the early surgical treatment, so we hadn't set up blank control group.

In conclusion, three kinds of surgeries to treat Rockwood type III ACD all were clinical effective. Although the MCDT in treating Rockwood type III ACD performed a remarkable effect and it had been widely used, there is still so much room for improvement. The MCDT group had advantages in operative time, incision length, intraoperative hemorrhage and the score of CMS, UCLA, ASES, OSS and CC-interval. In brief, the MCDT, which was improved on the basis of the CCDT, the operative time, intraoperative hemorrhage had been significantly improved, that made the reduction and fixation more solid, simple, convenient and fast.

Acknowledgements

The present study was supported by the National Natural Science Fund of China, grant no. 81674095, Science and Research Project of Education Department of Sichuan Province, grant no. 17ZB0472, the Science and Technology Project of Office of Science and Technology of Luzhou, grant no. 2016-176-13. We thank all patients and their family members, as well as all orthopedics from Affiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Southwest Medical University.

Glossary

Abbreviations

Abbreviations:

AC

acromioclavicular

ACD

acromioclavicular dislocation

MCDT

modified closed-loop double-endobutton technique

CCDT

common closed-loop double-endobutton technique

CHPF

clavicular hook plate fixation

CMS

Constant-Murley Score

UCLA

University of California at Los Angeles shoulder rating scale

ASES

rating scale of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons

OSS

Oxford Shoulder Score

CC-interval

coracoclavicular interval

References

1 

Kim AC, Matcuk G, Patel D, Itamura J, Forrester D, White E and Gottsegen CJ: Acromioclavicular joint injuries and reconstructions: A review of expected imaging findings and potential complications. Emerg Radiol. 19:399–413. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Gstettner C, Tauber M, Hitzl W and Resch H: Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: Surgical versus conservative treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 17:220–225. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Tauber M: Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: Current concepts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 133:985–995. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Tossy JD, Mead NC and Sigmond HM: Acromioclavicular separations: Useful and practical classification for treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 28:111–119. 1963.PubMed/NCBI

5 

Rockwood CJ, Williams G and Young D: Disorders of the acromioclavicular jointThe Shoulder. 2nd. Rockwood CJ and Matsen FA III: Philadelphia: WB Saunders; pp. 483–553. 1998

6 

Guy DK, Wirth MA, Griffin JL and Rockwood CA Jr: Reconstruction of chronic and complete dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1–149. 1998.PubMed/NCBI

7 

Pallis M, Cameron KL, Svoboda SJ and Owens BD: Epidemiology of acromioclavicular joint injury in young athletes. Am J Sports Med. 40:2072–2077. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Kongmalai P, Apivatgaroon A and Chernchujit B: Morphological classification of acromial spur: Correlation between Rockwood tilt view and arthroscopic finding. SICOT J. 3:42017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

McNeil JW, Beaulieu-Jones BR, Bernhardson AS, LeClere LE, Dewing CB, Lynch JR, Golijanin P, Sanchez G and Provencher MT: Classification and analysis of attritional glenoid bone loss in recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Am J Sports Med. 45:767–774. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Gorbaty JD, Hsu JE and Gee AO: Classifications in brief: Rockwood classification of acromioclavicular joint separations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 475:283–287. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

von Heideken J, Bostrȍm Windhamre H, Une-Larsson V and Ekelund A: Acute Surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation type V with a hook plate: Superiority to late reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 22:9–17. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Wellmann M, da Silva G, Lichtenberg S, Magosch P and Habermeyer P: Instability pattern of acromioclavicular joint dislocations type Rockwood III: Relevance of horizontal instability. Orthopade. 42:271–277. 2013.(In German). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Kezunović M, Bjelica D and Popović S: Comparative study of surgical treatment of acromioclavicular luxation. Vojnosanit Pregl. 70:292–297. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Virtanen KJ, Remes VM, Tulikoura IT, Pajarinen JT, Savolainen VT, Björkenheim JM and Paavola MP: Surgical treatment of Rockwood grade-V acromioclavicular joint dislocations: 50 patients followed for 15–22 years. Acta Orthop. 84:191–195. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Kienast B, Thietje R, Queitsch C, Gille J, Schulz AP and Meiners J: Mid-term results after operative treatment of Rockwood grade III–V Acromioclavicular joint dislocations with an AC-hook-plate. Eur J MedRes. 16:52–56. 2011.

16 

Kovilazhikathu Sugathan H and Dodenhoff RM: Management of type 3 acromioclavicular joint dislocation: Comparison long-term functional results of two operative methods. ISRN Surg. 2012:5805042012.PubMed/NCBI

17 

Gille J, Heinrichs G, Unger A, Riepenhof H, Herzog J, Kienast B and Oheim R: Arthroscopic-assisted hook plate fixation for acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Int Orthop. 37:377–382. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar

18 

Struhl S: Double endobutton technique for repair of complete acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 8:175–179. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar

19 

Di Francesco A, Zoccali C, Colafarina O, Pizzoferrato R and Flamini S: The use of hook plate in type III and V acromio-clavicular Rockwood dislocations: Clinical and radiological midterm results and MRI evaluation in 42 patients. Injury. 43:147–152. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Sandmann GH, Martetschläger F, Mey L, Kraus TM, Buchholz A, Ahrens P, Stöckle U, Freude T and Siebenlist S: Reconstruction of displaced acromio-clavicular joint dislocations using a triple suture-cerclage: Description of a safe and efficient surgical technique. Patient Saf Surg. 6:252012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Ranne JO, Sarimo JJ, Rawlins MI, Heinonen OJ and Orava SY: All-arthroscopic double-bundle coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using autogenous semitendinosus graft: A new technique. Arthrosc Tech. 1:e11–e14. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Choi NH, Lim SM, Lee SY and Lim TK: Loss of reduction and complications of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction with autogenous tendon graft in acute acromioclavicular dislocations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 26:692–698. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Clavert P, Meyer A, Boyer P, Gastaud O, Barth J and Duparc F: SFA: Complication rates and types of failure after arthroscopic acute acromioclavicular dislocation fixation. Prospective multicenter study of 116 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 101 8 Suppl:S313–S316. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Helfen T, Siebenbürger G, Ockert B and Haasters F: Therapy of acute acromioclavicular joint instability. Meta-analysis of arthroscopic/minimally invasive versus open procedures. Unfallchirurg. 118:415–426. 2015.(In German).

25 

Longo UG, Ciuffreda M, Rizzello G, Mannering N, Maffulli N and Denaro V: Surgical versus conservative management of Type III acromioclavicular dislocation: A systematic review. Br Med Bull. 122:31–49. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Zumstein MA, Schiessl P, Ambuehl B, Bolliger L, Weihs J, Maurer MH, Moor BK, Schaer M and Raniga S: New quantitative radiographic parameters for vertical and horizontal instability in acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. May 25–2017.(Epub ahead of print). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Porschke F, Schnetzke M, Aytac S, Studier-Fischer S, Gruetzner PA and Guehring T: Sports activity after anatomic acromioclavicular joint stabilisation with flip-button technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 25:1995–2003. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Faggiani M, Vasario GP, Mattei L, Calò MJ and Castoldi F: Comparing mini-open and arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint repair: Functional results and return to sport. Musculoskelet Surg. 100:187–191. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Biz C, Berizzi A, Cappellari A, Crimì A, Tamburin S and Iacobellis C: The treatment of acute Rockwood type III acromio-clavicular joint dislocations by two different surgical techniques. Acta Biomed. 86:251–259. 2015.PubMed/NCBI

30 

Struhl S and Wolfson TS: Closed-loop double endobutton technique for repair of unstable distal clavicle fractures. Orthop J Sports Med. 4:23259671166578102016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Ye G, Peng CA, Sun HB, Xiao J and Zhu K: Treatment of Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint dislocation usingautogenous semitendinosus tendon graft and endobutton technique. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 12:47–51. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

32 

Horst K, Garving C, Thometzki T, Lichte P, Knobe M, Dienstknecht T, Hofman M and Pape HC: Comparative study on the treatment of Rockwood type III acuteacromioclavicular dislocation: Clinical results from the TightRope® technique vs. K-wire fixation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 103:171–176. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Thomas K, Litsky A, Jones G and Bishop JY: Biomechanical comparison of coracoclavicular reconstructive techniques. Am J Sports Med. 39:804–810. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Groh GI, Mighell MA, Basamania CJ and Kibler WB: All things clavicle: From acromioclavicular to sternoclavicular and all points in between. Instr Course Lect. 65:181–196. 2016.PubMed/NCBI

35 

Grantham C, Heckmann N, Wang L, Tibone JE, Struhl S and Lee TQ: A biomechanical assessment of a novel double endobutton technique versus a coracoid cerclage sling for acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular injuries. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 24:1918–1924. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

36 

Kumar N and Sharma V: Hook plate fixation for acute acromioclavicular dislocations without coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction: A functional outcome study in military personnel. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 10:79–85. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Lu D, Wang T, Chen H and Sun LJ: A comparison of double Endobutton and triple Endobutton techniques for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 102:891–895. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Hu WY, Yu C, Huang ZM and Han L: Double Endobutton reconstituting coracoclavicular ligament combined with repairing acromioclavicular ligament at stage I for the treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation with Rockwood type III–V. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 28:500–503. 2015.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI

39 

Struhl S, Wolfson TS and Kummer F: Axial-plane biomechanical evaluation of 2 suspensory cortical button fixation constructs for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: Orthop. J Sports Med. 16:23259671166746682016.

40 

Struhl S and Wolfson TS: Continuous loop double endobutton reconstruction for acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Am J Sports Med. 43:2437–2444. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

41 

Beris A, Lykissas M, Kostas-Agnantis I, Vekris M, Mitsionis G and Korompilias A: Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation with a double-button fixation system. Injury. 44:288–292. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

42 

Li H, Wang C, Wang J, Wu K and Hang D: Restoration of horizontal stability in complete acromioclavicular joint separations: Surgical technique and preliminary results. Eur J Med Res. 18:422013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Constant CR and Murley AH: A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1–164. 1987.

44 

Amstutz HC, Sew Hoy AL and Clarke IC: UCLA anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1–20. 1981.

45 

Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, Iannotti JP, Mow VC, Sidles JA and Zuckerman JD: A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 3:347–352. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

46 

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R and Carr A: The assessment of shoulder instability: The development and validation of a questionnaire. J Bone Joint surg Br. 81:420–426. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

47 

Beitzel K, Cote MP, Apostolakos J, Solovyova O, Judson CH, Ziegler CG, Edgar CM, Imhoff AB, Arciero RA and Mazzocca AD: Current concepts in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Arthroscopy. 29:387–397. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

48 

Takase K and Yamamoto K: Changes in surgical procedures for acromioclavicular joint dislocation over the past 30 years. Orthopedics. 36:e1277–e1282. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

49 

Arirachakaran A, Boonard M, Piyapittayanun P, Kanchanatawan W, Chaijenkij K, Prommahachai A and Kongtharvonskul J: Post-operative outcomes and complications of suspensory loop fixation device versus hook plate in acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Traumatol. Feb 25–2017.(Epub ahead of print). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

50 

Murena L, Vulcano E, Ratti C, Cecconello L, Rolla PR and Surace MF: Arthroscopic treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation with double flip button. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 17:1511–1515. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

51 

Korsten K, Gunning AC and Leenen LP: Operative or conservative treatment in patients with Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: A systematic review and update of current literature. Int Orthop. 38:831–838. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

52 

Balke M, Schneider MM, Akoto R, Bähis H, Bouillon B and Banerjee M: Acute acromioclavicular joint injuries: Changes in diagnosis and therapy over the last 10 years. Unfallchirurg. 118:851–857. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar

53 

González-Erreguín V and Morales-Villanueva J: Surgical treatment of acute acromioclavicular dislocation Preliminary report. Acta Ortop Mex. 29:203–206. 2015.(In Spanish). PubMed/NCBI

54 

Ejam S, Lind T and Falkenberg B: Surgical treatment of acute and chronic acromioclavicular dislocation Tossy type III and V using the Hookplate. Acta Orthop Belg. 74:441–445. 2008.PubMed/NCBI

55 

Nühtern JV, Sellenschloh K, Bishop N, Jauch S, Briem D, Hoffmann M, Lehmann W, Pueschel K, Morlock MM, Rueger JM and Großterlinden LG: Biomechanical evaluation of 3 stabilization methods on acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 41:1387–1394. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

56 

McKee MD: Operative fixation of chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocation with hook plate and modified ligament transfer. J Orthop Trauma. 30 Suppl 2:S7–S8. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

57 

Lee CH, Shih CM, Huang KC, Chen KH, Hung LK and Su KC: Biomechanical analysis of implanted clavicle hook plates with different implant depths and materials in the acromioclavicular joint: A finite element analysis study. Artif Organs. 40:1062–1070. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

58 

Lin HY, Wong PK, Ho WP, Chuang TY, Liao YS and Wong CC: Clavicular hook plate may induce subacromial shoulder impingement and rotator cuff lesion-dynamic sonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg Res. 9:62014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

59 

Sun S, Gan M, Sun H, Wu G, Yang H and Zhou F: Does subacromial osteolysis affect shoulder function after clavicle hook plating? Biomed Res Int. 2016:40853052016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

60 

Shih CM, Huang KC, Pan CC, Lee CH and Su KC: Biomechanical analysis of acromioclavicular joint dislocation treated with clavicle hook plates in different lengths. Int Orthop. 39:2239–2244. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

61 

Coale RM, Hollister SJ, Dines JS, Allen AA and Bedi A: Anatomic considerations of transclavicular-transcoracoid drilling for coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. J Shoulder Surg. 22:137–144. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar

62 

Chaudry SN and Waseem M: Clavicular hook plate: Complications of retaining the implant. Injury. 37:6652006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

63 

Steinbacher G, Sallent A, Seijas R, Boffa JM, Espinosa W and Cugat R: Clavicular hook plate for grade-III acromioclavicular dislocation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 22:329–332. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

64 

Jafary D, Keihan Shokouh H, Najd Mazhar F, Shariat Zadeh H and Mochtary T: Clinical and radiological results of fixation of acromioclavicular joint dislocation by hook plates retained for more than five months. Trauma Mon. 19:e137282014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

January 2018
Volume 15 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Zhang, L., Zhou, X., Qi, J., Zeng, Y., Zhang, S., Liu, G. ... Fu, S. (2018). Modified closed‑loop double‑endobutton technique for repair of rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 15, 940-948. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.5487
MLA
Zhang, L., Zhou, X., Qi, J., Zeng, Y., Zhang, S., Liu, G., Ping, R., Li, Y., Fu, S."Modified closed‑loop double‑endobutton technique for repair of rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 15.1 (2018): 940-948.
Chicago
Zhang, L., Zhou, X., Qi, J., Zeng, Y., Zhang, S., Liu, G., Ping, R., Li, Y., Fu, S."Modified closed‑loop double‑endobutton technique for repair of rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 15, no. 1 (2018): 940-948. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.5487