Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37940713›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024

Mid-term clinical and sonographic outcomes of minimally invasive acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: mini-open versus arthroscopically assisted.

A Behrens, P Behrendt, M J Heintzen, J Finn, A Seekamp, K Mader, S Lippross, T O Klatte

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A Behrens *Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany. a.behrens@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9317-3338
P Behrendt *Asklepios Hospital St. Georg, Hamburg, Germany.
M J HeintzenDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany.
J FinnOrthopraxis Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
A SeekampDepartment of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel, Germany.
K MaderDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany.
S Lippross *Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel, Germany.
T O Klatte *Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20251, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe current literature describes various operative stabilization strategies which achieve good clinical outcomes after acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation. The aim of this study was to compare the mid-term clinical and sonographic treatment outcomes after minimally invasive mini-open and arthroscopic reconstruction. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a retrospective two-center study of patients with acute ACJ dislocation. Surgical treatment was performed using either a mini-open approach (MIOP) or an arthroscopic technique (AR). The primary outcome parameters of this study were the sonographically measured acromioclavicular (ACD) and coracoclavicular distances (CCD). Secondary outcome parameters included the Constant-Murley score (CS), range of motion (ROM), postoperative pain scale (VAS), return to daily routine, return to sports, complications, as well as operative revisions.

resultsAfter a mean follow-up of 29 months, 30 patients were included in this study with an average age of 41.3 ± 14.8 years (MIOP) and 41.2 ± 15.4 years (AR). The sonographic ACD (MIOP 9.11 mm vs. AR 8.93 mm, p = 0.41) and CCD (MIOP 25.08 mm vs. AR 24.36 mm, p = 0.29) distances showed no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference when compared to the contralateral side (p = 0.42). With both techniques, patients achieved excellent clinical outcome parameters without statistically significant differences in CS (MIOP 95 vs. AR 97, p = 0.11) and VAS (MIOP 1.76 vs. AR 1.14, p = 0.18). The return to daily activity and return to sport rates did not differ. There were neither complications nor revisions in both groups.

conclusionBoth minimally invasive techniques for acute ACJ stabilization achieved excellent clinical and sonographic outcomes without one technique being statistically superior to the other.

Indexed as

Acromioclavicular JointArthroplasty, ReplacementJoint DislocationsShoulder DislocationAdultArthroscopyHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAC joint dislocationAC joint stabilizationAcute

Identifiers

PMID37940713
PMCPMC10822806
OpenAlexW4388501462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.