ArticleSICOT-J2022
Early loss of radiographic reduction after acute acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: Comparison of open Double Endobutton fixation vs. Nottingham Surgilig.
Article in SICOT-J, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low short-term complication rates following acromioclavicular joint surgery: a large database study.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Acromioclavicular Joint Stabilization Using an Adjustable Endobutton: A Report of Two Cases.Cureus · 2026Article
- Anatomical reconstruction of coracoclavicular and acromioclavicular ligaments using an autologous tendon graft provides excellent outcomes in acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
- Risk factors for coracoclavicular reconstruction failure: a systematic review.JSES international · 2025Review
- Acromioclavicular Reconstruction Using the Lockdown Technique: A Case Series and Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgical treatment is usually recommended for the acute unstable acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations. Among the wide variety of different surgical techniques, the Double Endobutton and the Nottingham Surgilig technique are two of the most widely acceptable and well described techniques. The aim of this study was to offer a direct comparison of the above techniques in question, analysing the patients outcomes and assessing the risk of early loss of radiographic reduction. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 48 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Patients were categorised in two groups (Endobutton and Nottingham Surgilig group) and post operative assessment of the patients was performed using the Oxford Shoulder (OSS) and Constant Murley (CMS) scores. Patient demographics, hand dominance, ACJ classification and co-morbidities were included in the analysis and radiographic evaluation was conducted for both groups.
resultsBoth techniques provide a good outcome in the management of unstable ACJ dislocations but the risk of early radiographic failure remains higher in the double Endobutton technique (26% vs. 17.39% for the Nottingham Surgilig group). Factors such as patients' demographics, hand dominance, co-morbidities and grade of ACJ separation do not seem to contribute to radiographic loss of reduction, whereas the incorrect positioning of the coracoid endobutton is a significant factor predisposing to early radiographic failure, P < 0.001. DISCUSSION: The incidence of early loss of radiographic reduction still remains high in both groups. In order to reduce this common complication, accurate placement of the coracoid endobutton under fluoroscopic intra-operative control is strongly recommended.
Indexed as
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.