Comparison between open and arthroscopic procedures for lateral clavicle resection

Duindam, Nick; Kuiper, Jesse W P; Hoozemans, M.J.M.; Burger, Bart J.

doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2161-5

Cited by 8 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…19,21,22 In addition, Amirtharaj et al report a 7.6% complication rate for arthroscopic methods derived from incomplete resections. 20,27,28 Under-and over-resection (<5 mm and >15 mm) have been identified as the most common errors leading to DCE failure and revision surgery. 14,26 Inaccurate resection from lack of depth perception and inadequate visualization has been reported to be more common among arthroscopic procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17,19 Both arthroscopic techniques are challenged by limited visualization in addition to increased difficulty judging the depth of resection compared with the open technique. 17,20 Our technique and accompanying Video 1 aims to use a Kirschner (K) wire placed at the proximal resection border to be used as a visual reference to guard against over-resection of the distal clavicle.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distal Clavicle Excision for Acromioclavicular Joint Osteoarthritis Using a Fluoroscopic Kirschner Wire Guide

Kim¹,

Bryant²,

Gardner³

et al. 2021

Arthroscopy Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distal Clavicle Excision for Acromioclavicular Joint Osteoarthritis Using a Fluoroscopic Kirschner Wire Guide

Kim¹,

Bryant²,

Gardner³

et al. 2021

Arthroscopy Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This was lower than the only two studies reporting revision rates (3.7-6.2% for arthroscopic and 2.4-4.2% for open cases). 6,7 There are no studies in the literature reporting the outcomes of revision surgery. The OSS did not significantly improve after primary surgery, nor was a significant difference observed after revision surgery when compared with the pre-revision OSS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent series of primary ACJ excision found frozen shoulder rates of 3.4-8.3% for arthroscopic and 2.4-4.2% for open surgery. 6,7 The incidence of frozen shoulder in revision surgery has not been published.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Continuing acromioclavicular joint pain after excision arthroplasty: is further surgery effective?

Dekker

Borton

Espag

et al. 2019

annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Little published evidence exists on the incidence of continuing acromioclavicular joint pain with no published outcomes for revision surgery. This study aimed to establish the incidence and outcomes of revision acromioclavicular joint excision surgery. Materials and methods A consecutive retrospective cohort of patients undergoing revision arthroscopic or open acromioclavicular joint excision was identified. Patients were identified from a prospectively collected database. Inclusion criteria were revision acromioclavicular joint excisions over a 14-year period between 2001 and 2015. Exclusion criteria were previous surgery for acromioclavicular joint instability or shoulder arthroplasty. Outcome measures were Oxford Shoulder scores and a satisfaction survey. Results Forty-three consecutive cases of revision acromioclavicular joint excision over 14 years (37 after arthroscopic excision with subacromial decompression, 5 after arthroscopic excision with rotator cuff repair, 1 after open excision). Continuing acromioclavicular joint pain was associated with incomplete resection from arthroscopic surgery, which was the primary indication for revision surgery. Revision occurred a mean 14.2 months after primary surgery (standard deviation 7.6 months). Mean Oxford Shoulder score was preoperatively 18 (standard deviation 8.1) and 23.4 (standard deviation 11.1) after primary surgery, which did not reach significance until after revision surgery with a mean 31.7 (standard deviation 13.6; P = 0.021). Median follow up was 15 months (interquartile range 4–31 months). A survey at a mean of 6 years (standard deviation 2.3) post-revision surgery found that 65% of patients felt improved, 77% would have their surgery again and 69% of patients felt satisfied. The incidence of postoperative frozen shoulder was 14.3%. Conclusion Functional outcomes after revision surgery showed improvement from scores taken before primary surgery; however, long-term satisfaction rates were relatively low.

show abstract

No differences between conservative and surgical management of acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis: a scoping review

Soler-Romagosa¹,

Mocini

Djemeto

et al. 2021

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis, as well as to identify any existing gaps in the current knowledge. Methods Studies were identified by electronic databases (Ovid, Pubmed) from their inception up to April 2nd, 2020. All studies reporting functional outcomes after conservative or surgical treatment of acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis, either primary or secondary to trauma or distal clavicle osteolysis, were included. Following data were extracted: authors, year of publication, study design (prospective or retrospective), LOE, number of shoulders treated conservatively or surgically, patients' age, OA classification, type of conservative treatment, surgical approach, surgical technique, functional outcomes, complications, revisions, and length of follow-up. Descriptive statistics was used. Quality appraisal was assessed through the Cochrane risk of bias tool for LOE I/II studies, while the MINORS checklist was used for LOE III/IV studies. Results Nineteen studies were included for a total of 861 shoulders. Mean age of participants was 48.5 ± 7.4 years. Mean follow-up was 43.8 ± 29.9 months. Four studies reported functional results after conservative treatment, whereas 15 studies were focused on surgical management. No studies directly compared conservative and surgical treatment. Seven studies reported a surgical approach after failure of previous conservative treatment. All studies reported functional improvement and pain relief. Complication rate was low. Overall methodological quality of included studies was very low. Conclusion Conservative and surgical treatments are both effective in acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis management. However, available data did not allow to establish the superiority of one technique over another. Level of evidence Level IV.

show abstract

Comparison between open and arthroscopic procedures for lateral clavicle resection

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Distal Clavicle Excision for Acromioclavicular Joint Osteoarthritis Using a Fluoroscopic Kirschner Wire Guide

Distal Clavicle Excision for Acromioclavicular Joint Osteoarthritis Using a Fluoroscopic Kirschner Wire Guide

Continuing acromioclavicular joint pain after excision arthroplasty: is further surgery effective?

No differences between conservative and surgical management of acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About