ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2023
Surgical management of acute, high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations: a systematic review.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes for acute grade III and V acromioclavicular dislocations using hook plates and double-button fixation with a two-year follow-up.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Reconstruction Alone Versus Hardware-Augmented Reconstruction in Chronic High-Grade AC Joint Dislocation: A Systematic Review of Treatment Outcomes.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Tightrope vs. hook plate fixation for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
- Late Presentation of Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation with Double Fracture of Coracoid Process Managed by Arthroscopic Stabilization Technique: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Acromioclavicular Joint Augmentation Poststabilization Using Knotless Anchors.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While a number of treatment options exist for repair of acute, high-grade acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) separation, none have emerged as the standard of care. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on surgical treatment of acute, high-grade (Rockwood grades III-V) ACJ separations in order to compare outcomes between direct fixation and tendon graft ligament reconstruction. Methods: A systematic review of the literature evaluating outcomes for acute ACJ separation treatment with direct fixation or free biologic tendon graft reconstruction was performed. The following databases were examined: the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (1980-2021), and Embase (1980-2021). Studies were included if they reported a mean time to surgery as <6 weeks, contained >10 patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up, and reported clinical or radiographic outcomes. Results: A total of 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies reported outcomes following tendon graft ligament reconstruction (n = 128 patients). There were multiple methods of direct fixation. Thirty-three studies utilized suture button constructs (n = 1138), 16 studies used hook plates (n = 567), 2 studies used coracoclavicular screws (n = 94), 2 studies used suture fixation (n = 93), 2 studies used suture anchor (n = 55), 2 studies used suture cerclage fixation (n = 87), 1 used single multistrand titanium cable (n = 24), and 1 used K wire (n = 11). The mean follow-up Constant scores ranged from 77.5 to 97.1 in the fixation group compared to 90.3-96.6 in the tendon graft group. The mean visual analog scale scores ranged from 0 to 4.5 in the fixation group and 0.1-1 in the tendon graft group. Net CC distance ranged from 17.5 to 3.6 mm in the fixation group and 7.4-4 mm in the tendon graft group. The revision rates ranged from 0.0% to 18.18% in the direct fixation group and 5.88%-17% in the tendon graft group. Conclusion: Direct fixation and tendon graft reconstruction for management of acute, high-grade ACJ separations have similar patient subjective and radiographic outcomes, as well as complication and revision rates at a minimum 1-year follow-up.
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.