ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025
Tightrope vs. hook plate fixation for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Arthroscopic dual-reduction fixation for acromioclavicular joint dislocation: transosseous and half-cerclage fixation outcomes.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment for acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations aims to restore joint congruity and mechanical stability. However, the best operative technique remains a controversial issue. This systematic review and meta-analysis thus aim to compare the clavicular hook plate (HP) vs. the TightRope (TR) in the management of ACJ dislocation. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using Embase, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases to retrieve all relevant studies. Outcomes were operative time (minutes), intraoperative blood loss (mL), clinical outcome measures, postoperative coracoclavicular distance (CCD), and complications. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies tool for nonrandomized studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized control trials. Results: The literature search yielded 221 studies, of which 12 studies enrolling a total of 683 patients were included in this review, with 371 in the HP group and 312 in the TR group. Meta-analysis of comparative studies between HP and TR fixation showed that HPs had better Constant-Murley scores (mean difference (MD), -3.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), -5.37 to -1.75; Conclusion: TR fixation in ACJ dislocations had similar operative times, complication rates, University of California, Los Angeles scores, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores to HP fixation. The HP group had less intraoperative blood loss and better Constant-Murley scores. Conversely, TR fixation had better visual analog scale scores and smaller postoperative CCD. Future randomized control trials on this subject would aid in increasing the validity of our findings.
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.