Mid-term clinical and sonographic outcomes of minimally invasive acromioclavicular joint reconstruction:mini-open versus arthroscopically assisted
Standard
Mid-term clinical and sonographic outcomes of minimally invasive acromioclavicular joint reconstruction:mini-open versus arthroscopically assisted. / Behrens, Anna; Behrendt, Peter; Heintzen, Max; Finn, Jörg; Seekamp , Andreas; Mader, Konrad; Lippross, Sebastian; Klatte, Till Orla.
In: ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU, Vol. 144, No. 2, 02.2024, p. 807-814.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
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 -