Mid-term clinical and sonographic outcomes of minimally invasive acromioclavicular joint reconstruction:mini-open versus arthroscopically assisted

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mid-term clinical and sonographic outcomes of minimally invasive acromioclavicular joint reconstruction:mini-open versus arthroscopically assisted

AU - Behrens, Anna

AU - Behrendt, Peter

AU - Heintzen, Max

AU - Finn, Jörg

AU - Seekamp , Andreas

AU - Mader, Konrad

AU - Lippross, Sebastian

AU - Klatte, Till Orla

PY - 2024/2

Y1 - 2024/2

N2 - IntroductionThe current literature describes various operative stabilization strategies which achieve good clinical outcomes after acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation. The aim of this study was to compare the mid-term clinical and sonographic treatment outcomes after minimally invasive mini-open and arthroscopic reconstruction.Materials and methodsWe conducted a retrospective two-center study of patients with acute ACJ dislocation. Surgical treatment was performed using either a mini-open approach (MIOP) or an arthroscopic technique (AR). The primary outcome parameters of this study were the sonographically measured acromioclavicular (ACD) and coracoclavicular distances (CCD). Secondary outcome parameters included the Constant–Murley score (CS), range of motion (ROM), postoperative pain scale (VAS), return to daily routine, return to sports, complications, as well as operative revisions.ResultsAfter a mean follow-up of 29 months, 30 patients were included in this study with an average age of 41.3 ± 14.8 years (MIOP) and 41.2 ± 15.4 years (AR). The sonographic ACD (MIOP 9.11 mm vs. AR 8.93 mm, p = 0.41) and CCD (MIOP 25.08 mm vs. AR 24.36 mm, p = 0.29) distances showed no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference when compared to the contralateral side (p = 0.42). With both techniques, patients achieved excellent clinical outcome parameters without statistically significant differences in CS (MIOP 95 vs. AR 97, p = 0.11) and VAS (MIOP 1.76 vs. AR 1.14, p = 0.18). The return to daily activity and return to sport rates did not differ. There were neither complications nor revisions in both groups.ConclusionBoth minimally invasive techniques for acute ACJ stabilization achieved excellent clinical and sonographic outcomes without one technique being statistically superior to the other.

AB - IntroductionThe current literature describes various operative stabilization strategies which achieve good clinical outcomes after acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation. The aim of this study was to compare the mid-term clinical and sonographic treatment outcomes after minimally invasive mini-open and arthroscopic reconstruction.Materials and methodsWe conducted a retrospective two-center study of patients with acute ACJ dislocation. Surgical treatment was performed using either a mini-open approach (MIOP) or an arthroscopic technique (AR). The primary outcome parameters of this study were the sonographically measured acromioclavicular (ACD) and coracoclavicular distances (CCD). Secondary outcome parameters included the Constant–Murley score (CS), range of motion (ROM), postoperative pain scale (VAS), return to daily routine, return to sports, complications, as well as operative revisions.ResultsAfter a mean follow-up of 29 months, 30 patients were included in this study with an average age of 41.3 ± 14.8 years (MIOP) and 41.2 ± 15.4 years (AR). The sonographic ACD (MIOP 9.11 mm vs. AR 8.93 mm, p = 0.41) and CCD (MIOP 25.08 mm vs. AR 24.36 mm, p = 0.29) distances showed no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference when compared to the contralateral side (p = 0.42). With both techniques, patients achieved excellent clinical outcome parameters without statistically significant differences in CS (MIOP 95 vs. AR 97, p = 0.11) and VAS (MIOP 1.76 vs. AR 1.14, p = 0.18). The return to daily activity and return to sport rates did not differ. There were neither complications nor revisions in both groups.ConclusionBoth minimally invasive techniques for acute ACJ stabilization achieved excellent clinical and sonographic outcomes without one technique being statistically superior to the other.

U2 - 10.1007/s00402-023-05110-7

DO - 10.1007/s00402-023-05110-7

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 37940713

VL - 144

SP - 807

EP - 814

JO - ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU

JF - ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU

SN - 0936-8051

IS - 2

ER -