ArticleEFORT open reviews2025
Is there a role for acromioclavicular (AC) joint capsular repair and reconstruction in high-grade AC separations? A systematic review.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicenter evaluation of radiological and patient-reported outcomes following surgical treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Arthroscopic dual-reduction fixation for acromioclavicular joint dislocation: transosseous and half-cerclage fixation outcomes.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Critical role of the acromioclavicular ligament in posterior stability: a paradigm shift in acromioclavicular joint reconstruction.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical and biomechanical evidence for the addition of acromioclavicular (AC) ligament repair and reconstruction in the surgical management of high-grade AC joint (ACJ) dislocation. Methods: This is a systematic review of biomechanical and clinical studies that describe AC reconstructive or reparative techniques. The search ranged from 1946 to 2024 and included OVID, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library databases. Clinical and biomechanical outcomes were evaluated. Results: Thirty-two eligible studies were identified. Of these, four biomechanical studies focused on the ACJ exclusively. Twenty-eight other studies (15 clinical and 13 biomechanical) were identified involving reconstruction of the ACJ in addition to the treatment of the coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments. There was clinical evidence of improved outcomes with ACJ repair and reconstruction, although comparison was difficult. In comparative studies, ACJ-specific Taft and acromioclavicular joint instability scores were improved in patients with ACJ reconstruction. Constant score and subjective shoulder value also increased, although this was observed in studies lacking a control group. The biomechanical studies provide evidence of increased translational and rotational stability with ACJ repair and reconstruction, but the optimal technique has not been identified. Conclusion: ACJ repair and reconstruction, in addition to CC repair, results in improved biomechanical and functional outcomes and should be considered when treating high-grade ACJ injuries. There is insufficient evidence in the literature to be able to recommend a specific technique to treat ACJ injuries.
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.