ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2025
Outcomes of arthroscopic coracoclavicular management for acromioclavicular joint injuries: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Percutaneous double-endobutton fixation for selected acute rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint disruptions: early and mid-term outcomes of a prospective case series.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Observational
- 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Various surgical procedures for coracoclavicular (CC) ligament repair have been described for symptomatic acromioclavicular joint dislocations, with none emerging as a clear gold standard. There has been increased interest in arthroscopic approaches. This systematic review evaluates clinical outcomes after arthroscopic surgeries used to treat chronic and acute AC joint dislocations. Methods: We searched three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID [MEDLINE]) from database inception to December 20, 2022. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: studies evaluating humans, English language studies, level of evidence I to IV, and studies investigating clinical outcomes in patients following arthroscopic surgery for coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Studies on open reconstruction techniques only were excluded. Primary outcomes included function/pain scores, coracoclavicular distances, complications, and revision rates. Results: Fifty-two studies were included. In 33 studies, postoperative Constant-Murley scores ranged from 82.8 to 99 points. Postoperative VAS scores ranged from 0.3 to 4.1 in 16 studies. In 46 studies, revision rates ranged from 0 % to 44.4 %. We did not observe a difference in revision rates between chronic and acute cases (P = 0.268). Complications were more common in chronic than acute cases (25.5 % vs. 16.4 %; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Arthroscopic surgery for chronic and acute CC ligament injuries exceeds the MCID and PASS for several outcomes, with low failure rates. Arthroscopic CC reconstruction is a safe and effective alternative for chronic AC joint dislocations. Level of evidence: IV (Systematic Review of Level I-IV Studies).
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.