Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Radiometrische Charakteristika des Akromioklavikulargelenks im Hinblick auf klinische Relevanz, Alter und Geschlecht

Radiometric characteristics of the acromioclavicular joint with respect to clinical relevance, age and gender

  • Originalarbeit
  • Published:
Obere Extremität Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Fragestellung

Ziel der Untersuchung war die Quantifizierung der Akromioklavikulargelenk (ACG)-Winkel in verschiedenen Röntgenprojektionen in Abhängigkeit von Alter, Geschlecht, ACG-Spaltweite sowie akromiohumeralem Abstand (AHA) unter klinischen Aspekten.

Methodik

Die Kohorte bestand aus 300 Patienten (114 weiblich,186 männlich, mittleres Alter 61 Jahre). Untersucht wurden ACG-Winkel, ACG-Spaltweite sowie AHA in standardisierten radiologischen Projektionen.

Ergebnisse

In der Zanca-Aufnahme betrug der ACG-Winkel im Mittel 20,36° (± 9,8). Er fiel mit dem Alter auf durchschnittlich 17,00° (± 11,5) bei 81- bis 90-Jährigen. Es zeigte sich ein signifikanter Abfall der Spaltweite bei flachem ACG-Winkel. Mit dem Alter verringerte sich der AHA unabhängig vom ACG-Winkel.

Schlussfolgerung

Geschlechtsunabhängig zeigte sich ein projektionsbedingt um 3° flacherer ACG-Winkel in der a.p.-Projektion der Schulter verglichen mit der der Zanca-Aufnahme; 50 % der Kohorte wiesen einen ACG-Winkel >20° auf. Dies ist sowohl für Injektionen als auch ACG-Resektionen von Relevanz.

Abstract

Introduction

The objective of the examination was to quantify the acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) angles in the light of different X-ray projection methods in correlation to age and gender, to ACJ gap width and to acromiohumeral distance (AHD) under clinical aspects.

Materials and methods

The cohort consisted of 300 patients (114 female and 186 male, average age 61 years) and ACJ angles as well as the ACJ gap width and AHD were determined on standardized radiological projection methods.

Results

The ACJ angle amounted to an average of 20.36° (± 9.8°) in the Zanca view. With increasing age the mean angle showed a decrease to an average of 17.00° (± 11.5°) in the group of patients aged 81–90 years. The ratio between the ACJ angle and gap width showed a significant decrease of gap width at shallow ACJ angles and the AHD decreased with increasing age without correlation to the ACJ angle.

Conclusions

The findings showed a projection-related shallower ACJ angle in conventional a.p. projection compared to the Zanca view independent of gender and 50 % of the cohort showed an ACJ angle of more than 20°. This is of relevance for both injections and ACJ resections.

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

Literatur

  1. Bain GI,Van RietRP, Gooi C, Ashwood N (2007) The long-term efficacy of corticosteroid injection into the acromioclavicular joint using a dynamic fluoroscopic method. Int J Shoulder Surg 1:104–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bigliani LH, Morrison DS, April EW (1986) The morphology of acromion and its relationship to rotator cuff tears. Orthop Trans 10:228

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bisbinas I, Belthur M, Said HG et al (2006) Accuracy of needle placement in ACJ injections. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:762–765

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonsell S, Pearsall AW 4th, Heitman RJ et al (2000) The relationship of age, gender, and degenerative changes observed on radiographs of the shoulder in asymptomatic individuals. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:1135–1139

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bosworth BBM (1949) Complete acromioclavicular dislocation. N Engl J Med 241:221–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Colegate-Stone T, Allom R, Singh R et al (2010) Classification of the morphology of the acromioclavicular joint using cadaveric and radiological analysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 92:743–746

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. DePalma AF (1957) Degenerative changes in the sternoclavicular and acromioclavicular joints in various decades. Springfield: Charles C Thomas

    Google Scholar 

  8. Edwards SL, Wilson NA, Flores SE et al (2007) Arthroscopic distal clavicle resection: a biomechanical analysis of resection length and joint compliance in a cadaveric model. Arthroscopy 23:1278–1284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Elhassan B, Ozbaydar M, Diller D et al (2009) Open versus arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint resection: a retrospective comparison study. Arthroscopy 25:1224–1232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eskola A, Santavirta S, Viljakka HT et al (1996) The results of operative resection of the lateral end of the clavicle. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 78:584–587

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fischer BW, Gross RM, McCarthy JA, Arroyo JS (1999) Incidence of acromioclavicular joint complications after arthroscopic subacromial decompression. Arthroscopy 15:241–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fongemie AE, Buss DD, Rolnick SJ (1998) Management of shoulder impingement syndrome and rotator cuff tears. Am Fam Phys 57:667–674, 680–682

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Golding FC (1962) The shoulder-the forgotten joint. Br J Radiol 35:149–158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hedtmann A (2011) Die Bedeutung der Inklination des AC-Gelenkspaltes für das Versagen von ACG-Resektionsplastiken. Deutscher Kongress für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

  15. Heers G, Hedtmann A (2002) Sonographie des Akromioklavikulargelenkes. Orthopäde 31:255–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Heers G, Hedtmann A (2005) Correlation of ultrasonographic findings to Tossy’s and Rockwood’s classification of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Ultrasound Med Biol 31:725–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Horvath F, Kerry L (1984) Degenerative deformations of the acromioclavicular joint in the elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 3:259–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Morrison DS, Bigliani LU (1987) The clinical significance of variations in acromial morphology. Orthop Trans 11:234

    Google Scholar 

  19. Moseley HF (1959) Athletic injuries to the shoulder region. Am J Surg 98:401–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Needell SD et al (1996) MR imaging of the rotator cuff: Peritendinous and bony abnormalities in an asymptomatic population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:863–867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Neer CS (1983) Impingement lesions. Clin Orthop 173:70–77

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Partington PF, Broome GH (1998) Diagnostic injection around the shoulder: hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:147–150

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pauly S, Bartsch M, Stein V, Scheibel M (2010) AC-Gelenk-Arthrose. Indikationen zur Operation, Techniken der AC-Gelenk-Resektion. Arthroskopie 23:273–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Raza K, Lee CY, Pilling D et al (2003) Ultrasound guidance allows accurate needle placement and aspiration from small joints in patients with early inflammatory arthritis. Rheumatology 42:976–979

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Richards RR (1993) Acromioclavicular joint injuries. Instr Course Lect 42:259–269

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rowe CR (1988) Injection technique for the shoulder and elbow. Orthop Clin North Am 19:773–777

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sabeti-Aschraf M (2010) The infiltration of the AC joint performed by one specialist: ultrasound versus palpation a prospective randomized pilot study. Eur J Radiol 75:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shaffer BS (1999) Painful conditions of the acromioclavicular joint. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 7:176–188

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Theermann R, Hedtmann A (2005) Die Inklination des AC-Gelenkspaltes bei Patienten mit und ohne ACG-Symptomen und deren therapeutische Relevanz. 22. Kongress der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Arthroskopie, Frankfurt V53

  30. Tyurina TV (1985) Age-related characteristics of the human acromioclavicular joint. Arkh Anat Gistol Embriol 89:75–81

    Google Scholar 

  31. Urist MR (1946) Complete dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint: the nature of the traumatic lesion and effective methods of treatment with an analysis of forty-one cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 28:813–837

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zanca P (1971) Shoulder pain: involvment of the acromioclacicular joint. Analysis of 1000 cases. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 112:493–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Warenerstraße 7, 12683, Berlin, Deutschland

    Philipp-Johannes Braun

  2. Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Giessen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Deutschland

    T. Schwarting

  3. Klinik Fleetinsel Hamburg GmbH & Co. KG, Orthopädie II, Hamburg, Deutschland

    A. Hedtmann

Authors
  1. Philipp-Johannes Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Schwarting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Hedtmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp-Johannes Braun.

Additional information

Braun PJ and Schwarting T contributed equally to this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braun, PJ., Schwarting, T. & Hedtmann, A. Radiometrische Charakteristika des Akromioklavikulargelenks im Hinblick auf klinische Relevanz, Alter und Geschlecht. Obere Extremität 8, 35–40 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11678-012-0195-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11678-012-0195-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation