ArticleEFORT open reviews2025
Comparison of the arthroscopic and open surgery for the treatment of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint dislocation using suture button: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 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.
- 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
Purpose: To conduct a meta-analysis of clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of arthroscopic and open surgery for the treatment of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation using a suture button. Methods: The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted the literature searches based on preferred reporting items from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing arthroscopic and open surgery for the treatment of acute high-grade ACJ dislocation using a suture button. Constant score, visual analog scale, coracoclavicular distance, acromioclavicular distance, operation time, and occurrence of complications were analyzed. Results: Five studies comprising a total of 198 patients were included in this study. The findings revealed that, in comparison to open fixation, arthroscopic fixation resulted in longer surgical durations. However, there were no significant differences between the two techniques in terms of constant score, visual analog scale, coracoclavicular distance, acromioclavicular distance, or the occurrence of complications. Conclusions: Based on current evidence, arthroscopic fixation demonstrates comparable postoperative outcomes to open fixation, albeit with longer surgical durations. With ongoing technological advancements and refinement of surgical techniques, the efficiency and accessibility of arthroscopy are expected to improve, potentially solidifying its role as a superior choice in the future.
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.