ArticleBMC surgery2025
Comparable outcomes of arthroscopic and mini-open tightrope fixation for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute high-grade acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations are commonly treated surgically, with multiple fixation options available. Arthroscopic TightRope (AT) and mini-open TightRope (MOT) techniques are widely used, but comparative evidence remains limited.
methodsIn this retrospective comparative study, 96 patients with Rockwood type III–V AC joint dislocations were treated between 2018 and 2023 using either AT (n = 52) or MOT (n = 44). Two patients lost to follow-up were excluded. Primary outcomes included Constant–Murley and UCLA scores, while secondary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, coracoclavicular (CC) distance on radiographs, operative time, and complications. The sample size/power calculation was corrected (two-group comparison, α = 0.05, achieved power ~ 90% with d ≈ 0.67). A sensitivity analysis restricted to Rockwood IV–V was additionally performed to test robustness.
resultsAt one year, both groups showed significant improvements in Constant–Murley and UCLA scores (p < 0.001 within groups) with no between-group differences (p > 0.05). The mean difference in operative time between the groups was 14.3 min (95% CI 11.5–17.1, p < 0.001). CC distance difference between groups was 0.2 mm (95% CI − 0.3 to 0.7, p = 0.41), indicating similar radiological stability. Complication rates were low and comparable. The IV–V–only sensitivity analysis yielded results consistent with the overall cohort.
conclusionAT and MOT provide comparable one-year functional outcomes, pain relief, and radiological stability in acute AC dislocations. Differences were limited to perioperative parameters (longer operative time with arthroscopy). Choice of technique should be individualized based on patient factors and surgeon expertise.
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.