BiPOD arthroscopically assisted bidirectional stabilisation technique for high-grade acromioclavicular joint injury: two-year clinical and radiological outcomes

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intermediate-term clinical and radiological outcomes for acute, unstable acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injuries treated with the arthroscopically assisted BiPOD stabilisation technique. Methods Twenty-three patients who sustained acute, unstable ACJ injuries were included in this prospective study. We recorded demographics, injury classification, time to surgery, clinical scores, radiological outcomes and complications; each patient completed a minimum of 2 years post-operative observation. Results Mean follow-up was 26 months (range, 24—34). Clinical outcomes scores demonstrated good 2-year results: relative Constant score, 97.9/100; ACJ Index, 89.4/100; Subjective Shoulder Value, 92.4/100 and Taft = 11.1/12. Final C–C distance showed a mean of 0.7 mm (SD ± 1.8 mm) at 2 years. Complication rate was 9%. Conclusion The BiPOD technique shows excellent, reliable intermediate-term results with a favourable complication rate compared to existing techniques; it provides a comprehensive surgical option for the stabilisation of acute ACJ injuries restoring both vertical and horizontal stability.

A type VI acromioclavicular joint injury: subcoracoid dislocation in a patient with polytrauma

The Rockwood type VI acromioclavicular joint injury describes subcoracoid dislocation of the distal end of the clavicle. This injury pattern is exceedingly rare, with only 12 cases described in the literature. Diagnosis can be challenging; it is often the result of a high-energy mechanism and patients frequently have other severe distracting injuries. We report the case of a 23-year-old man who presented to our department after falling from a fifth-floor balcony. Alongside multiple intra-abdominal and musculoskeletal injuries, the patient sustained a type VI acromioclavicular joint dislocation. This injury was not picked up on the initial clinical assessment or described in the initial radiology report, with the diagnosis only made upon subsequent repeat review of the imaging by the admitting team. Fortunately, this delay did not increase the time to the patient receiving appropriate treatment. Despite its rarity, awareness of this injury pattern and its association with polytrauma is essential to reduce the risk of the diagnosis being overlooked in the acute setting.

BIOMECHANICAL COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN TENSION BAND WIRING, DOUBLE ENDO BUTTON AND HOOK PLATE FOR ACROMIOCLAVICULAR JOINT INJURY

Background: The treatment for acromioclavicular joint injury are debatable, there are fixation options include tension band wiring, AC joint reconstruction and hook plate These fixations are capable of providing a stable fixation, but controversy still exists that mentions the superiority of each of these fixationsPurpose: To compare biomechanical stability of 3 fixation include tension band wiring, double endo button, and hook plate to provide a scientific basis of the fixation.Methods: This research is an experimental in vitro. Using 27 acromioclavicular joints cadaver divided into three groups that performed tension band wiring fixation, double endo button and hook plate. Each fixation evaluated with 10, 20, 50 and 100 times repetitions with 100N traction force.Results: Tension band wiring gives the smallest displacement. In 10 times repetition average displacement of tension band wiring 0.056 mm (p = 0.000) compared to double endo button 1.622 mm and hook plate 0.867 mm. In 20 times repetitions, tension band wiring 0.1667 mm (p = 0,000) compared to double endo button 3.1778 mm and hook plate 1.1111 mm. In 50 times repetition, tension band wiring 0.3111 mm (p = 0.000) with double endo button 4.7778 mm and hook plate 1.3556 mm. In 100 times repetitions, tension band wire 0.556 mm (p = 0.000) while double endo button 5.4444 mm and hook plate 1.4556 mm.Conclusion: Tension band wiring have a good stability compared to double endo button and hook plate. But all of fixation provide stability for acriomioclavicular joint motion.

Treatment of Rockwood Type III Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation

While non-operative treatment with structured rehabilitation tends to be the strategy of choice in the management of Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint injury, some advocate surgical treatment to prevent persistent pain, disability, and prominence of the distal clavicle. There is no clear consensus regarding when the surgical treatment should be indicated, and successful clinical outcomes have been reported for non-operative treatment in more than 80% of type III acromioclavicular joint injuries. Furthermore, there is no gold standard procedure for operative treatment of type III acromioclavicular joint injury, and more than 60 different procedures have been used for this purpose in clinical practice. Among these surgical techniques, recently introduced arthroscopic-assisted procedures involving a coracoclavicular suspension device are minimally invasive and have been shown to achieve successful coracoclavicular reconstruction in 80% of patients with failed conservative treatment. Taken together, currently available data indicate that successful treatment can be expected with initial conservative treatment in more than 96% of type III acromioclavicular injuries, whereas minimally invasive surgical treatments can be considered for unstable type IIIB injuries, especially in young and active patients. Further studies are needed to clarify the optimal treatment approach in patients with higher functional needs, especially in high-level athletes.