Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41584527›Full record

ReviewJSES international2025

Risk factors for coracoclavicular reconstruction failure: a systematic review.

Braeden R Gooch, Josh W Thibeault, Charles R Reiter, Matthew S Smith, Joshua C Setliff, John W Cyrus, James R Satalich, J Brett Goodloe, Jennifer L Vanderbeck

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JSES international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Braeden R GoochDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Josh W ThibeaultDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Charles R ReiterDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Matthew S SmithDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, USA.
Joshua C SetliffDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, USA.
John W CyrusHealth Sciences Library, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
James R SatalichDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
J Brett GoodloeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, USA.
Jennifer L VanderbeckDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The coracoclavicular (CC) ligament reconstruction for acromioclavicular injuries is performed through a variety of surgical techniques and fixation methods. The purpose of this study is to determine the risk factors associated with failure of CC reconstruction, regardless of the fixation method used. Methods: A systematic review was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched through November 2024 for studies analyzing the failures of CC reconstructive surgery. Studies that quantified risk factors for CC reconstruction failure were included. Results: Seven studies comprising 781 CC reconstructions were analyzed with an overall failure rate of 19.1%. Clavicle tunnel malposition in anatomic reconstructions was the most cited risk factor for failure. Position was defined as either the distance from the lateral aspect of the clavicle to the tunnels or as a ratio between this distance and the length of the clavicle. Three studies cited increased failure risk with medial malposition of the conoid or trapezoid tunnels. Specific parameters included conoid tunnel ratio >0.25, (odds ratio (OR) = 5.67), trapezoid ratio >0.15 (OR = 4.2), conoid tunnel >47 mm (OR = 4.67), and trapezoid tunnel >24 mm (OR = 4.2). Lateral conoid tunnel malposition with a conoid tunnel ratio <0.20 (OR = 40) was also noted to increase failure risk. Another study identified increased risk of failure when surgeons use tunnel ratios instead of tunnel distance in mm intraoperatively (OR = 4.609). Placement of a lateral coracoid button, as opposed to a central button, was cited in 2 studies as significant risk factors (OR = 9.614, 13.87). Other risk factors included osteoporosis (OR = 8.652), weight-bearing before 6 weeks from surgery (OR = 6.4), surgery >6 weeks from initial injury (OR = 2.65), osteolysis (OR = 4.386), patient age >40 (OR = 3.14), and open reconstruction (OR = 4.25). Conclusions: Conoid and trapezoid tunnel malposition, both medially and laterally, were significantly associated with an increased risk of failure. Additionally, patient age, osteoporosis, osteolysis, time to weight bearing after surgery, delayed presentation of more than 6 weeks from initial injury, should be considered when considering surgical intervention.

Indexed as

Acromioclavicular reconstructionComplicationsCoracoclavicular reconstructionFailureReoperationRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID41584527
PMCPMC12828253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.