Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Short-term outcomes of arthroscopic TightRope® fixation are better than hook plate fixation in acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocations

  • Original Article • SHOULDER - ARTHROSCOPY
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of arthroscopic TightRope® fixation with that of hook plate fixation in patients with acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocations.

Patients and methods

We conducted a prospective case–control study of twenty-six patients with an acute ACJ dislocation who underwent surgical repair with either an arthroscopic TightRope® fixation or a hook plate from 2013 to 2016. Clinical and radiological data were collected prospectively. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Constant Score, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder Score, Oxford Shoulder Score as well as the visual analogue scale. Radiological outcomes were assessed with the coracoclavicular distance (CCD).

Results

Sixteen patients underwent arthroscopic TightRope® fixation, while 10 patients underwent hook plate fixation. There were no significant differences in the preoperative variables except for the mean UCLA 4b infraspinatus score (TightRope® 2.8 vs. hook plate 3.8; p = 0.030). Duration of surgery was significantly longer in the TightRope® group. At 1 year post-operatively, the TightRope® group had a significantly better Constant Score and CCD with no complications. All patients with hook plate fixation had to undergo a second procedure for removal of implant, and 3 patients had complications.

Conclusions

Arthroscopic TightRope® fixation is a good option for the treatment of acute unstable ACJ dislocations. It has better short-term clinical and radiological outcomes as well as lesser complications when compared to hook plate fixation.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic, Level III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oussedik S (2007) Injuries to the clavicle and acromioclavicular joint. Br J Hosp Med 68:M68–M70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Willimon S, Gaskill T, Millett P (2011) Acromioclavicular joint injuries: anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment. Phys Sport 39:116–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rieser G, Edwards K, Gould G et al (2013) Distal-third clavicle fracture fixation: a biomechanical evaluation of fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:848–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rockwood C, Williams G, Young D (1996) Fractures in Adults, vol I, 4th edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  5. Phillips A, Smart C, Groom A (1998) Acromioclavicular dislocation: conservative or surgical therapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 353:10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Spencer EJ (2007) Treatment of grade III acromioclavicular joint injuries: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 455:38–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoffler C, Karas S (2010) Transacromial erosion of a locked subacromial hook plate: case report and review of literature. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:e12–e15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bannister G, Wallace W, Stableforth P, Hutson M (1989) The management of acute acromioclavicular dislocation: a randomised prospective controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Br 71:848–850

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Johansen J, Grutter P, McFarland EG, Petersen SA (2011) Acromioclavicular joint injuries: indications for treatment and treatment option. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20:S70–S82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Simovitch R, Sanders B, Ozbaydar M et al (2009) Acromioclavicular joint injuries: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:207–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. von Heideken J, Bostrom Windhamre H, Une-Larsson V, Ekelund A (2013) Acute surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation type V with a hook plate: superiority to late reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nuchtern J, Sellenschloh K, Bishop N et al (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of 3 stabilization methods on acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Am J Sport Med 41:1387–1394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mares O, Luneau S, Staquet V et al (2010) Acute grade III and IV acromioclavicular dislocations: outcomes and pitfalls of reconstruction procedures using a synthetic ligament. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:721–726

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Constant C, Murley A (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214:160–164

    Google Scholar 

  15. Amstutz H, Sew Hoy A, Clarke I (1981) UCLA anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 155:7–20

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:593–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hawker G, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M (2011) Measures of adult pain: visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short form-36 bodily pain scale (SF. Arthritis Care Res 63(Suppl):S240–S252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Spoliti M, De Cupis M, Via A, Oliva F (2015) All arthroscopic stabilization of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation with fiberwire and endobutton system. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J 4:398–403

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tischer T, Salzmann GM, El-Azab H et al (2008) Incidence of associated injuries with acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations types III through V. Am J Sports Med 37:136–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508322891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jensen G, Kathagen J, Alvarado L et al (2014) Has the arthroscopically assisted reduction of acute AC joint separations with the double tight-rope technique advantages over the clavicular hook plate fixation? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:422–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Arirachakaran A, Boonard M, Piyapittayanum P et al (2016) Comparison of surgical outcomes between fixation with hook plate and loop suspensory fixation for acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26:565–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jensen G, Ellwein A, Voigt C, Kathagen J (2015) Injuries of the acromioclavicular joint: hook plate verses arthroscopy. Unfallchirurg 118:1041–1053

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ludewig P, Braman J (2011) Shoulder impingement: biomechanical considerations in rehabilitation. Man Ther 16:33–39

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Spencer H, Hsu L, Sodl J et al (2016) Radiographic failure and rates of re-operation after acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: a comparison of surgical techniques. Bone Joint J 98-B:512–518

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Yoon J, Le B, Nam S et al (2015) Comparison of results between hook plate fixation and ligament reconstruction for acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Clin Orthop Surg 7:97–103

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin H, Wong P, Ho W et al (2014) Clavicular hook plate may induce subacromial shoulder impingement and rotatr cuff lesion-dyanamic sonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg Res 9:6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Natera Cisneros L, Sarasquete Reiriz J (2017) Acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint injuries: quality of life comparison between patients managed operatively with a hook plate versus patients managed non-operatively. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 27:341–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia Level 4, Singapore, 169865, Singapore

    Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak, Eng-Meng Nicholas Yeo & Tijauw-Tjoen Denny Lie

  2. Orthopaedic Diagnostic Centre, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

    William Yeo

Authors
  1. Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eng-Meng Nicholas Yeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William Yeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tijauw-Tjoen Denny Lie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bin Abd Razak, H.R., Yeo, EM.N., Yeo, W. et al. Short-term outcomes of arthroscopic TightRope® fixation are better than hook plate fixation in acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28, 869–875 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2095-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2095-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation