Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31624902›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2019

The importance of biomechanical properties in revision acromioclavicular joint stabilization: a scoping review.

Felix Dyrna, Daniel P Berthold, Matthias J Feucht, Lukas N Muench, Frank Martetschläger, Andreas B Imhoff, Augustus D Mazzocca, Knut Beitzel

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Felix DyrnaDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
Daniel P BertholdDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
Matthias J FeuchtDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University, Munich, Germany.
Lukas N MuenchDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
Frank MartetschlägerATOS Clinic Munich, Munich, Germany.
Andreas B ImhoffDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University, Munich, Germany.
Augustus D MazzoccaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
Knut BeitzelDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University, Munich, Germany. beitzelknut@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4829-7347
University of Connecticut · USTechnical University of Munich · DEAtos (Germany) · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity Hospital Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTreatment of failed primary reconstruction of the unstable acromioclavicular (AC) joint remains challenging for orthopaedic surgeons. When approaching revision cases, the reason for failure has to be precisely identified. The purpose of this manuscript was to perform a critical review of the literature regarding treatment options for failed AC joint stabilization techniques and to provide a treatment algorithm for salvage procedures.

methodsA thorough search included electronic databases for articles published up to April 15th, 2019. Inclusion criteria were set as (1) studies that reported on clinical outcomes following surgical or conservative treatment of AC joint dislocation; (2) studies reporting on failure or complications of primary treatment; (3) chronic instabilities caused by delayed or secondary treatment as well as (4) revision and salvage procedures.

resultsThe search strategy identified a total of 3269 citations. The final dataset comprised 84 studies published between 1954 and 2019. A total of 5605 patients (9.63% females) were involved with a mean age of 34.5 years. Overall, complication rates varied between 5 and 88.9% in patients with AC joint instability.

conclusionIn the current literature, evidence for treatment of revision AC joint instability is still lacking, however, surgical treatment continues to evolve. The importance of failure analysis and clinically relevant algorithms were highlighted in this review. Adequately restoring native joint biomechanics is needed for ensuring an optimal healing environment that will translate into patient satisfaction and long-term stability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Indexed as

ReoperationAcromioclavicular JointBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansJoint InstabilityOrthopedic ProceduresSalvage TherapyTreatment FailureAC jointAcromioclavicular reconstructionFailureReviewRevision

Identifiers

PMID31624902
OpenAlexW2980484099

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.