Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aktuelle Aspekte und neue Techniken bei Schultereckgelenksprengung

Current aspects and new techniques in dislocation of the shoulder joint

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Verletzung des Akromioklavikulargelenks ist v. a. bei jungen und sportlichen Patienten eine häufige Verletzung des Schultergürtels und macht etwa 12 % der Schulterverletzungen aus. Die heute weitverbreitetste Einteilung ist die Klassifikation nach Rockwood, die 6 Typen abhängig vom Grad der Verletzung sowie von der vertikalen Dislokation unterscheidet. Da die horizontale Instabilität in dieser Klassifikation nicht entsprechend berücksichtigt wird, ist der Nutzen infrage gestellt. Während Typ-I- und Typ-II-Luxationen grundsätzlich konservativ und Typ-IV- bis Typ-VI-Luxationen operativ versorgt werden sollten, ist die Literatur bezüglich der Rockwood-Typ-III-Luxationen nicht konklusiv. Aus diesem Grund sind Einteilung sowie Therapie dieser Verletzungen vermehrt Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen und Diskussionen, wobei aktuell noch kein Konsens besteht. Dieser Übersichtsbeitrag legt die heutige Evidenz für die Diagnostik, verschiedene Klassifikationen und die therapeutischen Möglichkeiten dar.

Abstract

With 12% of all injuries concerning the shoulder, acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations are a common injury especially in young and active patients. The Rockwood classification is widely accepted, which differentiates between six types depending on the degree of injury and the vertical dislocation. Because the classification does not adequately address the horizontal instability, its benefits are questionable and there is currently no consensus. For this reason, the classification and the therapy of these injuries are increasingly becoming the subject of scientific investigations. Whereas conservative treatment for type I and II injuries and operative treatment for type IV–VI injuries are widely accepted, there is still no agreement in treating type III lesions. The goal of this review article is to present the current evidence for the diagnostics, different classifications and therapeutic possibilities.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Abbreviations

AC-DC:

Acromion center to distal clavicle

AC:

Akromioklavikular

ACJI:

Acromioclavicular joint instability

BIPOD:

Bipodale Fixationstechnik in vertikaler und horizontaler Richtung nach Akromioklavikulargelenksluxation

CC-Bänder:

Korakoklavikuläre Bänder

CC-Distanz:

Distanz zwischen Korakoid und Klavikula

CT:

Computertomographie

GACA:

Gleno-acromio-clavicular angle

GC-PC:

Glenoid centre to posterior clavicle

ISAKOS:

International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine

K-Draht:

Kirschner-Draht

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

SLAP:

Superior labrum anterior posterior

Literatur

  1. Alexander OM (1954) Radiography of the acromioclavicular articulation. Med Radiogr Photogr 30:34–39

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Balke M, Schneider MM, Shafizadeh S et al (2015) Current state of treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint injuries in Germany: is there a difference between specialists and non-specialists? A survey of German trauma and orthopaedic departments. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1447–1452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beitzel K, Mazzocca AD, Bak K et al (2014) ISAKOS upper extremity committee consensus statement on the need for diversification of the Rockwood classification for acromioclavicular joint injuries. Arthroscopy 30:271–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cai L, Wang T, Lu D et al (2017) Comparison of the tight rope technique and clavicular hook plate for the treatment of Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint dislocation. J Investig Surg 12:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2017.1305022

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma S (2015) Multicenter randomized clinical trial of nonoperative versus operative treatment of acute acromio-clavicular joint dislocation. J Orthop Trauma 29:479–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. De Beer J, Schaer M, Latendresse K et al (2017) BiPOD arthroscopic acromioclavicular repair restores bidirectional stability. Orthopedics 40:e35–e43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Flint JH, Wade AM, Giuliani J et al (2014) Defining the terms acute and chronic in orthopaedic sports injuries: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 42:235–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fukuda K, Craig EV, An KN et al (1986) Biomechanical study of the ligamentous system of the acromioclavicular joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:434–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerber C, Galantay RV, Hersche O (1998) The pattern of pain produced by irritation of the acromioclavicular joint and the subacromial space. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:352–355

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hann C, Kraus N, Minkus M et al (2017) Combined arthroscopically assisted coraco- and acromioclavicular stabilization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4643-2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hegazy G, Safwat H, Seddik M et al (2016) Modified weaver-dunn procedure versus the use of semitendinosus autogenous tendon graft for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. Open Orthop J 10:166–178

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kienast B, Thietje R, Queitsch C et al (2011) Mid-term results after operative treatment of rockwood grade III–V acromioclavicular joint dislocations with an AC-hook-plate. Eur J Med Res 16:52–56

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar V, Garg S, Elzein I et al (2014) Modified Weaver-Dunn procedure versus the use of a synthetic ligament for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 22:199–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin HY, Wong PK, Ho WP et al (2014) Clavicular hook plate may induce subacromial shoulder impingement and rotator cuff lesion—dynamic sonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg Res 9:6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Longo UG, Ciuffreda M, Rizzello G et al (2017) Surgical versus conservative management of Type III acromioclavicular dislocation: a systematic review. Br Med Bull 122:31–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mazzocca AD, Santangelo SA, Johnson ST et al (2006) A biomechanical evaluation of an anatomical coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 34:236–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mazzocca AD, Spang JT, Rodriguez RR et al (2008) Biomechanical and radiographic analysis of partial coracoclavicular ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 36:1397–1402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mc LH (1951) On the frozen shoulder. Bull Hosp Joint Dis 12:383–393

    Google Scholar 

  19. Metzlaff S, Rosslenbroich S, Forkel PH et al (2016) Surgical treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: hook plate versus minimally invasive reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:1972–1978

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Milewski MD, Tompkins M, Giugale JM et al (2012) Complications related to anatomic reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments. Am J Sports Med 40:1628–1634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Millett PJ, Horan MP, Warth RJ (2015) Two-year outcomes after primary anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 31:1962–1973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Minkus M, Hann C, Scheibel M et al (2017) Quantification of dynamic posterior translation in modified bilateral Alexander views and correlation with clinical and radiological parameters in patients with acute acromioclavicular joint instability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:845–852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mouhsine E, Garofalo R, Crevoisier X et al (2003) Grade I and II acromioclavicular dislocations: results of conservative treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12:599–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Natera Cisneros LG, 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 

  25. O’brien SJ, Pagnani MJ, Fealy S et al (1998) The active compression test: a new and effective test for diagnosing labral tears and acromioclavicular joint abnormality. Am J Sports Med 26:610–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pastor MF, Averbeck AK, Welke B et al (2016) The biomechanical influence of the deltotrapezoid fascia on horizontal and vertical acromioclavicular joint stability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:513–519

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pauly S, Kraus N, Greiner S et al (2013) Prevalence and pattern of glenohumeral injuries among acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint instabilities. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:760–766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Puhringer N, Agneskirchner J (2017) Arthroscopic technique for stabilization of chronic acromioclavicular joint instability with coracoclavicular and acromioclavicular ligament reconstruction using a gracilis tendon graft. Arthrosc Tech 6:e175–e181

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Rahm S, Wieser K, Spross C et al (2013) Standard axillary radiographs of the shoulder may mimic posterior subluxation of the lateral end of the clavicle. J Orthop Trauma 27:622–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rios CG, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD (2007) Anatomy of the clavicle and coracoid process for reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments. Am J Sports Med 35:811–817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Saccomanno MF, DE Ieso C, Milano G (2014) Acromioclavicular joint instability: anatomy, biomechanics and evaluation. Joints 2:87–92

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Saier T, Venjakob AJ, Minzlaff P et al (2015) Value of additional acromioclavicular cerclage for horizontal stability in complete acromioclavicular separation: a biomechanical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1498–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schaefer FK, Schaefer PJ, Brossmann J et al (2006) Experimental and clinical evaluation of acromioclavicular joint structures with new scan orientations in MRI. Eur Radiol 16:1488–1493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Scheibel M, Droschel S, Gerhardt C et al (2011) Arthroscopically assisted stabilization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations. Am J Sports Med 39:1507–1516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Scheibel M, Ifesanya A, Pauly S et al (2008) Arthroscopically assisted coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction for chronic acromioclavicular joint instability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:1327–1333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schlegel TF, Burks RT, Marcus RL et al (2001) A prospective evaluation of untreated acute grade III acromioclavicular separations. Am J Sports Med 29:699–703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Song T, Yan X, Ye T (2016) Comparison of the outcome of early and delayed surgical treatment of complete acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:1943–1950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tauber M (2013) Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: current concepts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:985–995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tauber M, Gordon K, Koller H et al (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 37:181–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tauber M, Koller H, Hitzl W et al (2010) Dynamic radiologic evaluation of horizontal instability in acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Am J Sports Med 38:1188–1195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tischer T, Salzmann GM, El-Azab H et al (2009) Incidence of associated injuries with acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations types III through V. Am J Sports Med 37:136–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Venjakob AJ, Salzmann GM, Gabel F et al (2013) Arthroscopically assisted 2‑bundle anatomic reduction of acute acromioclavicular joint separations: 58-month findings. Am J Sports Med 41:615–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zumstein MA, Schiessl P, Ambuehl B et al (2017) New quantitative radiographic parameters for vertical and horizontal instability in acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4579-6

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitätsklinik für Orthopädische Chirurgie und Traumatologie, Inselspital, Universität Bern, 3010, Bern, Schweiz

    J. Abel,  M. A. Zumstein, L. Bolliger & M. O. Schär

Authors
  1. J. Abel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. A. Zumstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Bolliger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. O. Schär
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. A. Zumstein.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

J. Abel, M.A. Zumstein, L. Bolliger und M.O. Schär geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren. Alle Patienten, die über Bildmaterial oder anderweitige Angaben innerhalb des Manuskripts zu identifizieren sind, haben hierzu ihre schriftliche Einwilligung gegeben. Im Falle von nicht mündigen Patienten liegt die Einwilligung eines Erziehungsberechtigten oder des gesetzlich bestellten Betreuers vor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abel, J., Zumstein, M.A., Bolliger, L. et al. Aktuelle Aspekte und neue Techniken bei Schultereckgelenksprengung. Orthopäde 47, 158–167 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-017-3517-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-017-3517-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation