ReviewJSES international2025
Risk factors for coracoclavicular reconstruction failure: a systematic review.
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.
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.
- Is horizontal stabilization necessary in chronic acromioclavicular reconstructions?JSES international · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.