Article

Open versus arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint resection: a retrospective comparison study.

Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.1). 11/2009; 25(11):1224-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.06.010
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose was to compare open and arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) resection.
We retrospectively reviewed 103 patients (105 shoulders) who underwent ACJ resection between 2000 and 2005. There were 56 women and 47 men with a mean age of 48 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 51 months (range, 15 to 91 months). Arthroscopic ACJ resection by use of a direct approach was performed in 81 shoulders (group A), and open ACJ resection was performed in 24 shoulders (group B). Results were graded according to pain relief both subjectively and objectively with cross-body adduction testing and direct palpation of the ACJ, subjective shoulder value, Constant score, and improved function.
The Constant scores increased from 50 (range, 34 to 65) to 89 (range, 39 to 100) in group A (P < .0001) and from 46 (range, 22 to 63) to 87 (range, 43 to 100) in group B (P < .0001). There was no statistical difference in the postoperative normalized Constant score between group A and group B (P = .47). Pain with cross-body adduction testing and palpation of the ACJ improved in 76 shoulders (94%) in group A and 22 shoulders (92%) in group B. No patients had signs or symptoms of ACJ anteroposterior instability. Revision ACJ resection was performed in 5 patients (5 shoulders [6.2%]) in group A and 1 shoulder (4.2%) in group B (P = .37). The radiographs of the patients who underwent revision showed that 3 patients (3.7%) from group A had regrowth of the distal clavicle; in addition, 2 patients (2.5%) from group A and 1 patient (4.3%) from group B had incomplete distal clavicle excision.
This study did not show a significant difference in the outcome between arthroscopic and open ACJ resection. Incomplete excision and regrowth of the distal clavicle are the most common causes of revision. Although only the arthroscopic group showed a small percentage of patients (3.7%) with regrowth of the distal clavicle, the number is too small to assume that this complication is the result of the arthroscopic technique only.
Level IV, therapeutic case series.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
127 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Arthroscopic resection of the painful and degenerative altered acromioclavicular (AC) joint without destabilization of the joint and therefore pain relief and improvement in function.
    Operative Orthopädie und Traumatologie 06/2014; 26(3):245-53. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endoscopic clavicular resection is a common procedure, but few studies have analyzed predictive factors for outcome. 1) Computed tomography (CT) of clavicular resection is reproductible; 2) Functional outcome correlates with resection length; 3) Other factors also influence outcome. Patients operated on between 2005 and 2010 were called back to establish functional scores (Constant, Simple Shoulder Test [SST], satisfaction) and undergo low-dose bilateral comparative computed tomography (CT) centered on the acromioclavicular joints. The assessment criteria were resection edge parallelism and resection length, measured using OsiriX(®) software. Radiological and clinical data were correlated. 18 out of 21 patients (85%: 3 female, 15 male) were assessed. Mean age at surgery was 49 years (range, 40-62 yrs); mean follow-up was 4.2 years (1.6-7.2 yrs). Mean Constant score rose from 57.7 (25-85) to 70.2 (30-96); mean postoperative SST was 9.3 (3-12). 11 patients had very good and 4 poor results. CT resection length was reproducible, with intraclass, intra- and interobserver correlation coefficients >95%. There was no significant correlation between articular resection length on CT and functional scores (P=0.2). Functional scores were negatively influenced by an occupational pathologic context (P<0.01) and by associated tendinopathy. Low-dose CT enabled reproducible analysis of clavicular resection. The hypothesized correlation between resection length and functional result was not confirmed. Work accidents and occupational disease emerged as risk factors. Single-center retrospective analytic cohort study. Level 4, guideline grade C.
    Orthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & Research 04/2014; · 1.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Arthroscopic lateral clavicle resection (LCR) is increasingly used, compared to an open approach, but literature does not clearly indicate which approach is preferable. The goal of this study was to compare function and pain between patients who underwent lateral clavicle resection using an open approach and patients treated using an arthroscopic approach. Patients who underwent LCR between January 2008 and December 2011 were reviewed. After exclusion, 149 shoulders (143 patients) were eligible for analysis: 41 open and 108 arthroscopic. Disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were used to assess shoulder function and pain. Complications, operative time, length of hospitalization and resection distance were compared. At a mean follow-up of three years, patients in the open group had significantly less pain by VAS (mm) (Mdn 10, IQR 23) compared with arthroscopic patients (Mdn 20, IQR 50) (p = 0.036). Operative time (minutes) was significantly less for the open approach (Mdn 24.0, IQR 12) compared with arthroscopic (Mdn 38.0, IQR 15) (p < 0.001). Resection distance (mm) was larger for the open approach (Mdn 7.1, IQR 7.0) compared with the arthroscopic approach (Mdn 3.2, IQR 3.1) (p = 0.006), but was not associated with outcome. No significant differences were found for DASH score, complication rate or length of hospitalization. Both arthroscopic and open approaches for LCR provide excellent outcome in patients with acromioclavicular pain. Less residual pain was found for the open approach, which has shorter operating time and is likely more cost effective.
    International Orthopaedics 11/2013; · 2.32 Impact Factor