ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
Mini-open vs. arthroscopic double tight-rope reconstruction after acute AC-joint dislocation: a comparison in functional outcome and sports activity.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Comparison of Open vs. Mini-Open Approach in Treatment of Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation Using a Suspensory Fixation System: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Arthroscopic-Assisted Triple-Bundle Reconstruction for Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Comparable outcomes of arthroscopic and mini-open tightrope fixation for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Cutting Through Time: A Surgical Comparison of Bosworth, LARS™, and TightRopeJournal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of the arthroscopic and open surgery for the treatment of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint dislocation using suture button: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Suture stabilization of the acromioclavicular ligament plus clavicular hook plate fixation vs. total ligament repair with loop plates for acromioclavicular joint dislocation.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Acromioclavicular and sternoclavicular joint injuries in contact sports: a narrative review of conservative and surgical treatments.Annals of joint · 2025Review
- Bibliometric and visualized analysis of arthroscopic treatment of acromioclavicular joint injury.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn athletes, acromioclavicular joint disruptions account for up to 50% of all shoulder injuries. In high-grade injuries, surgery is favored to ensure a correct restoration of the joint, especially in young athletes. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical, radiological and sport related outcomes of the arthroscopic stabilization with the fixation of the AC joint in a mini-open approach. MATERIALS AND
methods19 patients treated arthroscopically (ASK) and 26 patients with an acute AC-joint dislocation Rockwood V who had undergone the mini-open (MO) surgery were included. Constant Murley Score (CMS), Taft Score (TS) and the Simple Shoulder Tests (SST) were evaluated. The sports activity level was determined according to Valderrabano and the athlete's recovery of their athletic activity level after surgery according to Rhee. Furthermore, all available X-ray images were analyzed.
resultsPatients in the ASK group achieved an average score of 11.7 ± 0.6 points in the SST, 10.3 ± 1.8 points in the TS and 91.2 ± 11.8 points in the CMS. On average, patients in the MO group achieved results of 10.5 ± 1.4 points in the SST, 11.7 ± 0.7 points in the TS and 91.6 ± 9.8 points in the CMS. The ASK group showed significant difference regarding the CC distance in side comparison (Δ = 3.6 mm), whereas no significant difference was found in the MO group (Δ = 0.8 mm). In comparison of both groups, the posterior as well as the combined translation were significantly greater in the ASK group than in the MO group (posterior: ASK: 24.8 mm, MO: 19.3 mm, combined: ASK: 29.1 mm, MO: 20.9 mm). Residual horizontal instability was greater in the ASK group (43%) than in the MO group (32%). Similar results were achieved in sports activity and the recovery of athletic activity (Valderrabano: ASK: 2.8, MO: 2.6; Rhee: ASK: 1.6, MO: 1.5).
conclusionsBoth techniques prove to be effective for the stabilization of high-grade AC-joint disruptions in athletes and showed excellent clinical results. From a radiographic standpoint, the mini-open procedure appears superior to the arthroscopic technique. After mini-open surgery postoperative loss of correction is less common and greater horizontal stability is achieved. The results also suggest the mini-open technique is superior to the arthroscopic procedure when aiming to restore the athlete's original level of sports activity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1:
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.