Skip to main content

Anatomic and non-anatomic reconstruction improves post-operative outcomes in chronic acromio-clavicular instability: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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

IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Adam FF, Farouk O (2004) Surgical treatment of chronic complete acromioclavicular dislocation. Int Orthop 28:119–122

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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 21:2641–2652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beitzel K, Cote MP, Apostolakos J, Solovyova O, Judson CH, Ziegler CG et al (2013) Current concepts in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Arthroscopy 29:387–397

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bezer M, Saygi B, Aydin N, Kucukdurmaz F, Ekinci G, Guven O (2009) Quantification of acromioclavicular reduction parameters after the Weaver–Dunn procedure. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129:1017–1024

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boileau P, Old J, Gastaud O, Brassart N, Roussanne Y (2010) All-arthroscopic Weaver-Dunn-Chuinard procedure with double-button fixation for chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Arthroscopy 26:149–160

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradley JP, Elkousy H (2003) Decision making: operative versus nonoperative treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Clin Sports Med 22:277–290

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Calvo E, López-Franco M, Arribas IM (2006) Clinical and radiologic outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of type III acromioclavicular joint injury. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:300–305

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dumontier C, Sautet A, Man M, Apoil A (1995) Acromioclavicular dislocations: treatment by coracoacromial ligamentoplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4:130–134

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ejam S, Lind T, Falkenberg B (2008) Surgical treatment of acute and chronic acromioclavicular dislocation Tossy type III and V using the Hook plate. Acta Orthop Belg 74:441–445

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fauci F, Merolla G, Paladini P, Campi F, Porcellini G (2013) Surgical treatment of chronic acromioclavicular dislocation with biologic graft vs synthetic ligament: a prospective randomized comparative study. J Orthop Traumatol 14:283–290

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fraschini G, Ciampi P, Scotti C, Ballis R, Peretti GM (2010) Surgical treatment of chronic acromioclavicular dislocation: comparison between two surgical procedures for anatomic reconstruction. Injury 41:1103–1106

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haber DB, Spang RC, Sanchez G, Sanchez A, Ferrari MB, Provencher MT (2017) Revision acromioclavicular-coracoclavicular reconstruction: use of precontoured button and 2 allografts. Arthrosc Tech 6:e2283–e2288

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hegazy G, Safwat H, Seddik M, Al-Shal EA, Al-Sebai I, Negm M (2016) Modified Weaver–Dunn procedure versus the use of semitendinosus autogenous tendon graft for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. Open Orthop J 10:166–178

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, Hoboken

  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jensen G, Katthagen JC, Alvarado L, Lill H, Voigt C (2013) Arthroscopically assisted stabilization of chronic AC-joint instabilities in GraftRope technique with an additive horizontal tendon augmentation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:841–851

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jeon IH, Dewnany G, Hartley R, Neumann L, Wallace WA (2007) Chronic acromioclavicular separation: the medium term results of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using braided polyester prosthetic ligament. Injury 38:1247–1253

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim SH, Lee YH, Shin SH, Lee YH, Baek GH (2012) Outcome of conjoined tendon and coracoacromial ligament transfer for the treatment of chronic type V acromioclavicular joint separation. Injury 43:213–218

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kocaoglu B, Ulku TK, Gereli A, Karahan M, Turkmen M (2017) Palmaris longus tendon graft versus modified Weaver-Dunn procedure via dynamic button system for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction in chronic cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26:1546–1552

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 22:1650–1655

    Article  PubMed  Google 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) 22:199–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 5:159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee SK, Song DG, Choy WS (2015) Anatomical double-bundle coracoclavicular reconstruction in chronic acromioclavicular dislocation. Orthopedics 38:e655–e662

    PubMed  Google 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:e193

    Article  Google 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 96:73–84

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. López-Alameda S, Fernández-Santás T, García-Villanueva A, Varillas-Delgado D, de Lucas FG (2018) Results of surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocations type III using modified Weaver Dunn technique. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 62:93–99

    Google 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 34:236–246

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 24:1961–1967

    Article  Google 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) 36:89–93

    Google Scholar 

  32. Parnes N, Friedman D, Phillips C, Carey P (2015) Outcome after arthroscopic reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments using a double-bundle coracoid cerclage technique. Arthroscopy 31:1933–1940

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pavlik A, Csépai D, Hidas P (2001) Surgical treatment of chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocation by modified weaver-Dunn procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:307–312

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L (2008) Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 61:991–996

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rockwood C (1984) Fractures and dislocations of the shoulder. In: Rockwood C Jr, Green D (eds) Fractures in adults. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 860–910

    Google Scholar 

  37. RStudio Team (2015) RStudio: integrated development for. R. R Studio Inc., Boston http://www.rstudio.com

  38. Saccomanno MF, Fodale M, Capasso L, Cazzato G, Milano G (2014) Reconstruction of the coracoclavicular and acromioclavicular ligaments with semitendinosus tendon graft: a pilot study. Joints 2:6–14

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Simovitch R, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD, Roche CP (2018) Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27:298–305

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sood A, Wallwork N, Bain GI (2008) Clinical results of coracoacromial ligament transfer in acromioclavicular dislocations: a review of published literature. Int J Shoulder Surg 2:13–21

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  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:512–518

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stanley TD (2017) Limitations of PET-PEESE and other meta-analysis methods. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 8:581–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Struhl S, Wolfson TS (2015) Continuous loop double endobutton reconstruction for acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Am J Sports Med 43:2437–2444

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 102:583–587

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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 37:181–190

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 44:482–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Thomas K, Litsky A, Jones G, Bishop JY (2011) Biomechanical comparison of coracoclavicular reconstructive techniques. Am J Sports Med 39:804–810

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Torrens C, Guirro P, Santana F (2016) The minimal clinically important difference for function and strength in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:262–268

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Trainer G, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD (2008) Practical management of grade III acromioclavicular separations. Clin J Sport Med 18:162–166

    Article  PubMed  Google 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–e375

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL (2010) Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 1:112–125

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Virtanen KJ, Savolainen V, Tulikoura I, Remes V, Haapamäki V, Pajarinen J et al (2014) Surgical treatment of chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocation with autogenous tendon grafts. Springerplus 3:420

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Vitali M, Pedretti A, Rodriguez NN, Franceschi A, Fraschini G (2015) Vascular graft employment in the surgical treatment of acute and chronic acromio-clavicular dislocation. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:1205–1211

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 22:9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wang Y, Zhang J (2014) Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction by coracoid process transfer augmented with hook plate. Injury 45:949–954

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Weaver JK, Dunn HK (1972) Treatment of acromioclavicular injuries, especially complete acromioclavicular separation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 54:1187–1194

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Weinstein DM, McCann PD, McIlveen SJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU (1995) Surgical treatment of complete acromioclavicular dislocations. Am J Sports Med 23:324–331

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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 19:1040–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Xue C, Song LJ, Zhang H, Tang GL, Li X, Fang JH (2018) Truly anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction with 2 Endobutton devices for acute Rockwood type V acromioclavicular joint dislocations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27:e196–e202

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that there was no funding of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Espregueira-Mendes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None to declare.

Ethical approval

No ethical approval was required for this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 110 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xará-Leite, F., Andrade, R., Moreira, P.S. et al. Anatomic and non-anatomic reconstruction improves post-operative outcomes in chronic acromio-clavicular instability: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27, 3779–3796 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05408-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05408-3

Keywords

  • Acromio-clavicular
  • Chronic instability
  • Anatomic reconstruction
  • Non-anatomic reconstruction