Acromioclavicular joint and distal clavicle injuries

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-175
Author(s):  
Timothy S. Johnson
2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66
Author(s):  
Ho-Jung Kang ◽  
Il-Hyun Koh ◽  
Jong-Hwan Joo ◽  
Yong-Min Chun ◽  
Hyung-Sik Kim

Author(s):  
Daniël E Verstift ◽  
Matthijs P Somford ◽  
Derek F P van Deurzen ◽  
Michel P J van den Bekerom

This classic discusses the original publication “Treatment of acromioclavicular injuries, especially complete acromioclavicular separation” by Weaver and Dunn, which collaborated to develop a technique for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction in 1972. Their surgical technique described resection of 2 cm of the distal clavicle and transfer of the acromial end of the coracoacromial ligament into the medullary canal of the distal clavicle. (modified) Weaver-Dunn procedures have been regarded as one of the most effective techniques to treat complete acromioclavicular joint dislocation for a long time. However, anatomic reconstructions have taken over this position since recent biomechanical studies have demonstrated superior results. Although the Weaver-Dunn procedure has fallen out of favour, it remains of historical significance. For this reason, this review will comprise the historical overview of the Weaver-Dunn procedure, the men behind the eponym and the clinical implication then and now.


2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Charles N. Books ◽  
James B. Talmage ◽  
J. Mark Melhorn

Abstract Indications for excision of the distal clavicle include symptomatic degenerative arthritis of the acromioclavicular joint, impingement syndrome, and osteolysis of the distal clavicle if nonoperative treatment has failed. Distal clavicular resection (DCR), one could argue, is by definition an impairment because of the loss of a portion of a body part, the clavicle. Yet a competently performed and uncomplicated DCR generally results in improved function, not loss of use. DCR was first mentioned in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, which stated that a resection arthroplasty of the acromioclavicular joint warrants 10% upper extremity impairment (UEI). Rating DCR using the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, is almost the same as using the fourth edition, but evaluators can use one of two approaches: The rating physician can select a 3% rating for DCR using the fifth edition and claim to be literally following the instructions and providing a sensible rating in view of the generally good results reported in the orthopedic literature following a DCR. Alternatively, a rating physician who is aware of the historical precedent underlying the 10% UEI in Table 16-27 could cite this and the absence of an instruction in the Arthroplasty section to justify a 10% impairment rating. In the sixth edition, DCR is a key factor in classifying an acromioclavicular joint injury or disease but is disregarded in the rating of rotator cuff or glenohumeral pathology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document