Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28717889›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2018

Combined arthroscopically assisted coraco- and acromioclavicular stabilization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations.

Carmen Hann, Natascha Kraus, Marvin Minkus, Nina Maziak, Markus Scheibel

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carmen HannDepartment of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Campus Virchow, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Natascha KrausDepartment of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Campus Virchow, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Marvin MinkusDepartment of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Campus Virchow, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Nina MaziakDepartment of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Campus Virchow, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Markus ScheibelDepartment of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Campus Virchow, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. markus.scheibel@charite.de.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose and hypothesisDue to high rate of persisting dynamic posterior translation (DPT) following isolated coracoclavicular double-button technique for reconstruction of the acromioclavicular (AC) joint reported in the literature, an additional acromioclavicular cerclage was added to the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of patients with high-grade AC-joint instability treated with a double TightRope technique with an additional percutaneous acromioclavicular cerclage.

methodsFifty-nine patients (6 f/53 m; median age 38.3 (range 21.5-63.4 years) who sustained an acute high-grade AC-joint dislocation (Rockwood type V) were treated using the above-mentioned technique. At the final follow-up, the constant score (CS), the subjective shoulder value (SSV), the Taft score (TF) and the acromioclavicular joint instability score (ACJI) as well as bilateral anteroposterior stress views with 10 kg of axial load and bilateral modified Alexander views were obtained.

resultsAt a median follow-up of 26.4 (range 20.3-61.0) months, 34 patients scored a median of 90 (33-100) points in the CS, 90 (25-100) % in the SSV, 11 (4-12) points in the TF and 87 (43-100) points in the ACJI. The coracoclavicular (CC) distance was 12.1 (6.5-19.8) mm and the CC difference 2.0 (0.0-11.0) mm. Two patients (5.8%) showed a complete DPT of the AC joint, and fourteen patients (41.1%) displayed a partial DPT. The overall revision rate was 11.7%. Two patients presented implant irritation, one patient a recurrent instability, and one patient suffered from a local infection.

conclusionThe arthroscopically assisted and image-intensifier-controlled double TightRope technique with an additional percutaneous acromioclavicular cerclage leads to good and excellent clinical results after a follow-up of 2 years. The incidence of persisting dynamic horizontal translation is lower compared to isolated coracoclavicular stabilization. Thus, we recommend using the double TightRope implant with an additional acromioclavicular cerclage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Indexed as

Acromioclavicular JointAdultArthroscopyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansJoint DislocationsJoint InstabilityMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiographyTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAcromioclavicular joint dislocationAcromioclavicular joint instabilityArthroscopic coracoclavicular stabilizationTightRope

Identifiers

PMID28717889
OpenAlexW2734716051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.