Acute, complete acromioclavicular separation

Imatani, RJ; Hanlon, JJ; Cady, GW

doi:10.2106/00004623-197557030-00007

Cited by 136 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Anteroposterior, lateral, and axial views are standard views taken for the shoulder; however, a Zanca view [12] is the most accurate view to look at the AC joint. This view is performed by tilting the X-ray beam 10°-15°toward the cephalic direction.…”

Section: Radiographic Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acromioclavicular joint dislocations

Babhulkar

Pawaskar

2014

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acromioclavicular (AC) dislocation is a common injury especially among sportsmen. There is still a lack of consensus on whether to conserve or operate type III AC joint dislocations. Even among surgeons inclined to operate AC joint dislocations there is no unanimity on which surgical technique. There are a plethora of choices between mechanical fixation or synthetic materials or biologic anatomic reconstructions. Even among surgeons, there is a choice between open repairs and the latest-arthroscopic reconstructions. This review of AC joint dislocations intends to analyze the available surgical options, a critical analysis of existing literature, actual technique of anatomic repair, and also accompanying complications.

show abstract

Section: Radiographic Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acromioclavicular joint dislocations

Babhulkar

Pawaskar

2014

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ConstantMurley score [22], Imatani score [23], Poigenfurst score [15], ULCA score [24], Taft score [25]), radiological assessments and complication rates and secondly all subjective outcomes (e.g. health related quality of life, pain, shoulder function, cosmetic outcome, return to previous work/ sport/activities).…”

Section: Outcomes Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operative or conservative treatment in patients with Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: a systematic review and update of current literature

Korsten

Gunning

Leenen

2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Despite previous studies the management of Rockwood type III acromioclavicular (AC) dislocations remains controversial and the debate continues about whether patients with Rockwood type III AC injuries should be treated conservatively or operatively. In this study, we will review the current literature and present an overview of the outcome of conservative versus operative treatment of Rockwood type III dislocations. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was used to conduct this review. A systematic search was performed in the Pubmed, Cochrane library, Embase, Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Titles and abstracts were screened using predefined criteria and articles were critically appraised on relevance and validity. Results After critical appraisal eight articles were included in the study. The objective and subjective shoulder function outcome was better in the operative group, especially in young adults, though the rate of complications and radiographic abnormalities were higher. The rehabilitation time was shorter in the conservative group, however the cosmetic outcome was worse. Conclusions This review showed no conclusive evidence for the treatment of Rockwood type III AC dislocations. Overall, physically active young adults seem to have a slight advantage in outcome when treated operatively.

show abstract

“…Imatani, Hanlon and Cady (1975) described a scoring system for patients with disruption of the acromioclavicular joint and Rowe (1978) one for use in patients with anterior instability. Others were designed to assess the results of arthroplasty of the glenohumeral joint (Amstutz, Sew Hoy and Clarke 1981;Neer, Watson and Stanton 1982;Warren, Ranawat and Inglis 1982;Barrett et al 1987;Swanson et al 1989) but that of Constant and Murley (1987) was claimed to be applicable to all shoulders, regardless of the diagnosis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of the Constant-Murley Shoulder Assessment

Conboy

Morris

Kiss

et al. 1996

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume

294

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have analysed the Constant-Murley (1987) assessment for 25 patients with shoulder pathology. We found the score easy to use, with low inter-and intraobserver errors, but sufficiently imprecise in repeated measurements to give concern in its use for clinical follow-up of patients.We have calculated 95% confidence limits for a single assessment to be within 16 to 20 points in most cases. In addition, we found that all our subjects with instability as their main problem scored within five points of the maximum; this suggests that the scoring method may need to be revised for use on these patients.

show abstract

Acute, complete acromioclavicular separation

Cited by 136 publications

References 0 publications

Acromioclavicular joint dislocations

Acromioclavicular joint dislocations

Operative or conservative treatment in patients with Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: a systematic review and update of current literature

An Evaluation of the Constant-Murley Shoulder Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About