The Effect of Clavicular Tunnel Position on Reduction Loss in Patients with Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocations Operated with a Single-Bundle Suspensory Loop Device

Abstract

Objective: The treatment of acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations offers numerous options, and ongoing debates persist regarding their comparative effectiveness. Among these options, the suspensory loop device (SLD) is one of the most favored treatment modalities. Despite the observed high reduction loss rate associated with SLD, the treatment yields favorable clinical outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with acute type 3 and 5 ACJ dislocations who underwent open and arthroscopic procedures using a single-bundle SLD, and to evaluate the effect of clavicular tunnel position on reduction loss.

Methods: Thirty-seven eligible patients diagnosed with acute type 3 and type 5 ACJ dislocation who underwent open and arthroscopic surgery with a single-bundle SLD between January 2015 and March 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data and radiological measurements including coracoclavicular (CC) interval, clavicle length (CL), and implant distance (ID) were recorded. The ID/CL ratio was calculated and a value between 0.17 and 0.24 was considered as “acceptable implant position”. Reduction loss and other complications were noted. Patients were divided into two groups: open (Group 1) and arthroscopic (Group 2). Constant Murray Score (CMS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were used for clinical and functional outcomes. Non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis of variables.

Results: The study included six females (16.2%) and 31 males (83.8%) with a mean age of 40.2 ± 14.7 years (range: 20–75). The mean follow-up period was 22.3 ± 16.7 months (range: 6–72). The average time from trauma to surgery was 6.3 ± 5.3 days (range: 1–18). At the last follow-up, the CMS was 89.3 ± 8.8 and the VAS score was 2.1 ± 0.9. The mean ID/CL ratio was 0.19 ± 0.1 and 19 patients (51.4%) were between 0.17 and 0.24. Reduction loss was observed in nine patients (24.3%). There were no significant differences between Group 1 and Group 2 regarding operation time (p = 0.998), ID/CL ratio (p = 0.442), reduction loss (p = 0.458), CMS (p = 0.325), and VAS score (p = 0.699). Of the 28 patients without reduction loss, 16 had an ID/CL ratio between 0.17 and 0.24 (p = 0.43). Furthermore, within the 0.17–0.24 interval, CMS was higher with an average of 91.8 ± 5.1 compared to the other intervals (p = 0.559).

Conclusion: The clinical and functional outcomes of acute type 3 and type 5 ACJ dislocation operated open and arthroscopically with single-bundle SLD are similar and satisfactory. A clavicular tunnel position in the range of 0.17–0.24 (ID/CL ratio) is recommended to maintain postoperative reduction.

Keywords

Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation / Clavicular Tunnel Position / Reduction Loss / Single Bundle / Suspensory Loop Device

References

[1] Nordin JS, Olsson O, Lunsjö K. Acromioclavicular joint dislocations: incidence, injury profile, and patient characteristics from a prospective case series. JSES Int. 2020; 4(2): 246–250.

[2] Skjaker SA, Enger M, Engebretsen L, Brox JI, Bøe B. Young men in sports are at highest risk of acromioclavicular joint injuries: a prospective cohort study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021; 29(7): 2039–2045.

[3] Williams GR, Nguyen VD, Rockwood CR. Classification and radiographic analysis of acromioclavicular dislocations. Appl Radiol. 1989; 18: 29–34.

[4] Berthold DP, Muench LN, Dyrna F, Mazzocca AD, Garvin P, Voss A, et al. Current concepts in acromioclavicular joint (AC) instability—a proposed treatment algorithm for acute and chronic AC-joint surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1): 1078.

[5] Kim S, Blank A, Strauss E. Management of type 3 acromioclavicular joint dislocations—current controversies. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2014; 72(1): 53–60.

[6] Tang G, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Qin X, Hu J, Li X. Comparison of surgical and conservative treatment of Rockwood type-III acromioclavicular dislocation: a meta-analysis. Medicine. 2018; 97(4): e9690.

[7] Yan Y, Liao M, Lai H, Xu Z, Chen H, Huang W, et al. Comparison of effectiveness and safety in treating acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation with five different surgical procedures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(8): 1944–1958.

[8] Abdelrahman AA, Ibrahim A, Abdelghaffar K, Ghandour TM, Eldib D. Open versus modified arthroscopic treatment of acute acromioclavicular dislocation using a single tight rope: randomized comparative study of clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(11): 2090–2097.

[9] Shin SJ, Kim NK. Complications after arthroscopic coracoclavicular reconstruction using a single adjustable-loop-length suspensory fixation device in acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Arthroscopy. 2015; 31(5): 816–824.

[10] Çarkçı E, Polat AE, Gürpınar T. The frequency of reduction loss after arthroscopic fixation of acute acromioclavicular dislocations using a double-button device, and its effect on clinical and radiological results. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020; 15: 136.

[11] Kurtoglu A, Sukur E, Cicekli O, Daldal I, Kochai A, Sen Z, et al. Does the ZipTightTM effective to maintain reduction after the treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation? Medicine. 2020; 99(9): e19387.

[12] Rios CG, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD. Anatomy of the clavicle and coracoid process for reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(5): 811–817.

[13] Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; 214: 160–164.

[14] Breuer R, Unterrainer A, Komjati M, Tiefenboeck TM, Trieb K, Pirkl C. Minimally invasive AC joint reconstruction system (MINAR^®) in modified triple-button technique for the treatment of acute AC joint dislocation. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(10): 1683.

[15] Elhalawany MF, Abdalla UG, Shwitter L, ElAttar MS, Fahmy FS. Assessment of coracoclavicular ligament healing on MRI after arthroscopic tight rope fixation for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Orthop J Sports Med. 2023; 11(10): 23259671231185749.

[16] Nie S, Lan M. Comparison of clinical efficacy between arthroscopically assisted tight-rope technique and clavicular hook plate fixation in treating acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations. J Orthop Surg. 2021; 29(2): 23094990211010562.

[17] Topal M, Köse A. Surgical management of Rockwood type 3 acromioclavicular joint injuries: a retrospective comparison of outcomes of suture anchor fixation and double-button fixation techniques. Medicine. 2020; 99(21): e20312.

[18] Özcafer R, Albayrak K, Lapçin O, Çetinkaya E, Arıkan Y, Gül M. Early clinical and radiographic results of fixation with the TightRope device for Rockwood type V acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a retrospective review of 15 patients. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2020; 54(5): 473–477.

[19] Reyniers P, Mulder DE, Ruette P, Van Raebroeckx A. Long-term follow-up in a single-bundle arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction after Rockwood III to VI dislocation. Acta Orthop Belg. 2023; 89(1): 156–161.

[20] Park I, Lee S, Shin SJ. Arthroscopic-assisted double-bundle coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using cortical fixation buttons with suture tape provides superior vertical stability than the single-bundle reconstruction for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Arthroscopy. 2023; 39(2): 213–221.

[21] Hohmann E, Tetsworth K, Glatt V. Open versus arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019; 139(5): 685–694.

[22] Faggiani M, Vasario GP, Mattei L, Calò MJ, Castoldi F. Comparing mini-open and arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint repair: functional results and return to sport. Musculoskelet Surg. 2016; 100(3): 187–191.

[23] Cook JB, Krul KP. Challenges in treating acromioclavicular separations: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018; 26(19): 669–677.

[24] Jensen G, Katthagen JC, Alvarado LE, Lill H, Voigt C. Has the arthroscopically assisted reduction of acute AC joint separations with the double tight-rope technique advantages over the clavicular hook plate fixation? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 22(2): 422–430.

[25] Gowd AK, Liu JN, Cabarcas BC, Cvetanovich GL, Garcia GH, Manderle BJ, et al. Current concepts in the operative Management of Acromioclavicular Dislocations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of operative techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47(11): 2745–2758.

[26] Sun LJ, Lu D, Tao ZY, Yu XB, Hu W, Ma YF, et al. Analysis of risk factors for loss of reduction after acromioclavicular joint dislocation treated with the suture-button. J Orthop Sci. 2019; 24(5): 817–821.

[27] Kotekar MF, Pai S, Yogesh K, Kumar MA, Shetty MS. Anatomy of clavicle in the Indian population and its applicability in pre-contoured plating. Int Orthop. 2020; 44(4): 699–704.

[28] Shibata T, Izaki T, Miyake S, Doi N, Shibata Y, Irie Y, et al. Anatomical study of the position and orientation of the coracoclavicular ligaments: differences in bone tunnel position by gender. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019; 105(2): 275–280.

[29] Cook JB, Shaha JS, Rowles DJ, Bottoni CR, Shaha SH, Tokish JM. Clavicular bone tunnel malposition leads to early failures in coracoclavicular ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41(1): 142–148.

[30] Gu F, Tan L, Wang T, Wen Q, Su Z, Sui Z, et al. Comparison of single versus double TightRope system in the treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30(8): 1915–1923.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.