Anatomic and non-anatomic reconstruction improves post-operative outcomes in chronic acromio-clavicular instability: a systematic review
- 125 Downloads
To systematize the surgical outcomes of anatomic and non-anatomic reconstruction in patients with chronic acromio-clavicular joint (ACJ) instability and determine which technique is superior.
This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 30th, 2018 for original articles that assessed the outcomes of one or more surgical techniques of anatomic and non-anatomic reconstruction in patients with chronic ACJ instability. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Pre-to-post meta-analysis was performed for both anatomic and non-anatomic reconstructions.
Twenty-eight studies were included comprising 799 patients (mean age of 36.6 years old and 84% males) with a mean follow-up of 34.6 months (range 13 to 74). Surgical techniques included anatomic (tendinous or synthetic grafts/constructs) and non-anatomic reconstruction (Weaver–Dunn or Modified Weaver–Dunn, conjoined tendon transfer, or temporary hook plate). There were significant pre-to-post improvements on the constant score with an average improvement ranging from 11.1 to 50.7 (p < 0.01). Average failure rate was 7.6% (7.5% for anatomic and 8.5% for non-anatomic reconstruction). Non-comparative studies had a mean MINORS score of 9 points (out of 16) and comparative studies 17 (out of 24) with excellent interrater agreement (k = 0.910).
Both anatomic and non-anatomic ACJ reconstructions provide significant post-operative improvements, but definitive conclusions on optimal technique remain elusive. Notwithstanding, comparative studies support the use of anatomic ACJ reconstruction which should be preferably used. However, until superiority is demonstrated by robust studies, surgeons should supplement their decision-making with experience and patient preference.
Level of evidence
KeywordsAcromio-clavicular Chronic instability Anatomic reconstruction Non-anatomic reconstruction
The authors declare that there was no funding of this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None to declare.
No ethical approval was required for this study.
- 2.Baujat B, Mahé C, Pignon JP, Hill C (2002) A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: application to a meta-analysis of 65 trials. Stat Med 21:2641–2652Google Scholar
- 15.Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- 16.Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558Google Scholar
- 21.Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, Joukainen A, Aarimaa V (2013) Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:1650–1655Google Scholar
- 22.Kumar V, Garg S, Elzein I, Lawrence T, Manning P, Wallace WA (2014) Modified Weaver-Dunn procedure versus the use of a synthetic ligament for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 22:199–203Google Scholar
- 23.Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 5:159–174Google Scholar
- 25.Li Q, Hsueh P-l, Chen Y-f (2014) Coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and a biomechanical study of a triple endobutton technique. Medicine (Baltimore) 93:e193Google Scholar
- 26.Li X, Ma R, Bedi A, Dines DM, Altchek DW, Dines JS (2014) Management of acromioclavicular joint injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:73–84Google Scholar
- 29.Mazzocca AD, Santangelo SA, Johnson ST, Rios CG, Dumonski ML, Arciero RA (2006) A biomechanical evaluation of an anatomical coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 34:236–246Google Scholar
- 30.Muccioli GMM, Manning C, Wright P, Grassi A, Zaffagnini S, Funk L (2016) Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction with the LARS ligament in professional versus non-professional athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:1961–1967Google Scholar
- 31.Nissen CW, Chatterjee A (2007) Type III acromioclavicular separation: results of a recent survey on its management. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 36:89–93Google Scholar
- 35.Phillips A, Smart C, Groom A (1998) Acromioclavicular dislocation: conservative or surgical therapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 353:10–17Google Scholar
- 36.Rockwood C (1984) Fractures and dislocations of the shoulder. In: Rockwood C Jr, Green D (eds) Fractures in adults. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 860–910Google Scholar
- 37.RStudio Team (2015) RStudio: integrated development for. R. R Studio Inc., Boston http://www.rstudio.com
- 42.Spencer HT, Hsu L, Sodl J, Arianjam A, Yian EH (2016) Radiographic failure and rates of re-operation after acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: a comparison of surgical techniques. Bone Joint J 98-b:512–518Google Scholar
- 43.Stanley TD (2017) Limitations of PET-PEESE and other meta-analysis methods. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 8:581–591Google Scholar
- 45.Takase K, Yamamoto K (2016) Arthroscopic procedures and therapeutic results of anatomical reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments for acromioclavicular Joint dislocation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102:583–587Google Scholar
- 46.Tauber M, Gordon K, Koller H, Fox M, Resch H (2009) Semitendinosus tendon graft versus a modified Weaver-Dunn procedure for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction in chronic cases: a prospective comparative study. Am J Sports Med 37:181–190Google Scholar
- 47.Tauber M, Valler D, Lichtenberg S, Magosch P, Moroder P, Habermeyer P (2016) Arthroscopic stabilization of chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocations: triple- versus single-bundle reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 44:482–489Google Scholar
- 50.Trainer G, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD (2008) Practical management of grade III acromioclavicular separations. Clin J Sport Med 18:162–166Google Scholar
- 51.Triantafyllopoulos IK, Lampropoulou-Adamidou K, Schizas NP, Karadimas EV (2017) Surgical treatment of acute type V acromioclavicular joint dislocations in professional athletes: an anatomic ligament reconstruction with synthetic implant augmentation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26:e369–e375PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 52.Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48Google Scholar
- 56.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 22:9–17Google Scholar
- 57.Wang Y, Zhang J (2014) Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction by coracoid process transfer augmented with hook plate. Injury 45:949–954Google Scholar
- 60.Windhamre HAB, von Heideken JP, Une-Larsson VE, Ekelund AL (2010) Surgical treatment of chronic acromioclavicular dislocations: a comparative study of Weaver-Dunn augmented with PDS-braid or hook plate. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:1040–1048Google Scholar