Comparison of the TightRope system versus hook plate in acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: a retrospective analysis
Abstract This study compared the results of the minimally invasive coracoclavicular (CC) fixation with a single TightRope (MITR) procedure and the hook plate (HP) procedure for acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocation treatment. Sixteen patients with a mean age of 44.9 ± 11 years were treated...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/949887a423964e45a806773e0fe993c8 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract This study compared the results of the minimally invasive coracoclavicular (CC) fixation with a single TightRope (MITR) procedure and the hook plate (HP) procedure for acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocation treatment. Sixteen patients with a mean age of 44.9 ± 11 years were treated with the MITR procedure. Nineteen patients with a mean age of 40.2 ± 8.7 years were treated using the HP procedure. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Constant–Murley Score (CMS), and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder score. Vertical displacement of the clavicle with reference to the height of the acromion was measured in standard anteroposterior radiographs. The mean follow-up was 27 months in the MITR group and 30 months in the HP group. No statistically significant differences were found between the MITR group and the HR group in terms of VAS score (0.4 ± 0.6 vs 0.7 ± 0.6, P = 0.138), UCLA Shoulder score (33.9 ± 2.5 vs 33.7 ± 1.5, P = 0.843), or CMS (95.7 ± 7.3 vs 93.7 ± 6.6, P = 0.400). No redislocation was identified in the HP group, while redislocation occurred in 1 of 16 (6.3%) patients in the MITR group. One patient in the HP group (5.3%) had acromial osteolysis, while no acromial osteolysis was found in the MITR group. No other adverse events, such as infections, tunnel widening, fractures, or implant-related complications, were observed. Both procedures provided satisfactory results. The HP procedure provided better reduction, while the MITR procedure provided a slightly lower tendency of pain. Long-term follow-up is needed to investigate the clinical outcomes and radiological outcomes of both groups. |
|---|