ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022
Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes for Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Fixation are Similar With or Without Allograft Augmentation.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Timing of Surgical Treatment for High-Grade Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries Does Not Affect Functional Outcomes.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Acromioclavicular Joint Augmentation Poststabilization Using Knotless Anchors.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a novel surgical technique for acromioclavicular joint reduction with coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction and anatomic conoid ligament reconstruction.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare functional outcomes, complications, and revision rates between allograft reconstruction and graftless fixation techniques for the treatment of Rockwood grades III-V acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint separation. Methods: Patients who underwent graftless or allograft surgery acutely (≤6 weeks from injury) for Rockwood type III-V AC joint separations from 2012 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinic notes and operative reports were identified to confirm the surgical technique and presence of complications including revision, infection, and fracture. In addition, postoperative radiographs were assessed to determine any instances of loss of adequate reduction, and several patient-reported outcomes were collected. Results: In total, 115 patients (52 allograft, 63 graftless) were included in this study with a mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 2.5 years. There were no differences between allograft and graftless patients regarding rates of loss of reduction >5 mm (11.1% graftless vs 21.2% allograft), revision (3.2% vs 1.9%), infection (1.6% vs 3.9%), fracture (3.2% vs 7.7%), or total complication (7.9% vs 9.6%) rates (all Conclusion: Multivariate analysis found that patients who underwent acute AC joint fixation without allograft augmentation had similar functional outcomes, complications, and revision rates compared with patients who underwent AC joint reconstruction with allograft. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.