ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2023
Operative vs. conservative treatment of AC-Joint Dislocations Rockwood grade ≥ III -An economical and clinical evaluation.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of operative versus conservative treatment for Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- More Fixation, Better Outcome? Evaluating the Role of Additional Acromioclavicular Ligament Reconstruction in AC Joint Injuries: A Multicenter Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advantages and Disadvantages of the Arthroscopic Procedure in Acromioclavicular Separation.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcromioclavicular joint dislocations (ACD) are one of the most common shoulder injuries. There is no consensus in how to treat higher graded ACD ≥ Rockwood grade III. This study compares operative versus conservative treatment regarding costs and clinical outcome parameters. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective, consecutive case-control-study includes 14 patients. Seven operatively treated patients were matched, by Rockwood grade, with seven conservatively treated patients. The cost was extracted out of the clinical- and insurance-based cost sheets and furthermore these include the loss of earnings. Clinical examination, demographic data as well as different outcome-questionnaires were recorded.
resultsThere were no significant differences between operative and conservative treated patients for outcome Questionnaires. Of note, there was a significantly higher incidence of tenderness over the AC-joint (p = 0.0038) postoperatively. As expected, economical evaluation showed various findings in favor of the conservative treatment. The costs for medical services (11012.39vs.1163.81USD; p = 0.0061), days of hospitalization (3.3vs.0days; p < 0.0001); total cost for medical treatment (30262.17 vs. 7833.82 USD; p = 0.0358) were significantly higher in the operative group.
conclusionEven with a limited case number and a retrospective study design almost all clinical results were equal in both groups. Operative therapy of higher graded ACDs (Rockwood > III) compared to conservative is economically inefficient. Under consideration of clinical comparable results, indications for operative treatment should be set very carefully.
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.