The treatment of dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint

Urist, Marshall R.

doi:10.1016/0002-9610(59)90535-5

Cited by 38 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…29 No evidence strongly supports one method over another and, in fact, compliance with the more cumbersome methods has been poor in most reports. 13,[30][31][32] An athlete with AC joint injury can use a sling for comfort initially, and rehabilitation can be initiated as soon as the symptoms resolve.…”

Section: Traumatic Conditions Of the Acromioclavicular Jointmentioning

confidence: 96%

Acromioclavicular Joint Problems in Athletes and New Methods of Management

Rios¹,

Mazzocca²

2008

Clinics in Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Traumatic Conditions Of the Acromioclavicular Jointmentioning

confidence: 96%

Acromioclavicular Joint Problems in Athletes and New Methods of Management

Rios¹,

Mazzocca²

2008

Clinics in Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2,3 The more common Rockwood I and II separations are usually managed nonoperatively with satisfactory outcomes. 4Y6 The optimal management of acute type 3 dislocations is unclear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the Acromioclavicular Joint Using Semitendinosus Allograft

VanSice

Savoie

2008

Techniques in Shoulder &Amp; Elbow Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this report is to describe an arthroscopic technique using a semitendinosus allograft to reconstruct chronic grade III, IV, or V acromioclavicular joint separations. Indications for arthroscopic surgery include pain, functional limitation, severe cosmetic deformity, and failure of nonoperative treatment. Twelve patients were managed by this technique during a 2-year period. All 12 were reevaluated 2 to 4 years postoperatively. Of the 12 patients, 10 had satisfactory to excellent results. Two patients lost reduction: 1 was subsequently repaired with an excellent result and 1 loss of approximately 5 mm of reduction with no consent for follow-up procedure at this time. There was a 25% complication rate. The arthroscopic technique for reconstruction of the dislocated acromioclavicular joint is still evolving but shows much promise for the future management of these problematic injuries.

show abstract

“…In eight of these, muscles and ligaments were divided in the following order: 1) The acromioclavicular ligament and the joint capsule immediately underneath the ligament, 2) the entire capsule of the acromioclavicular joint, 3) the insertions of the deltoid and the trapezoid muscles into the lateral 2 cm of the clavicle, and 4) the coracoclavicular ligament. This order was chosen as most authors agree that in any injury resulting in complete dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint the above structures will be affected in this order (Horn 1954, Urist 1959, Quigley 1960, Bundens & Cook 1961, Moseley 1969. Other authors (Stewart 1963, Jacobs & Wade 196G, Weitzmann 1967, Weaver & Dunn 1972 have described injurics to these muscles in cases with h a .…”

Section: A T E R I a L A N D M E T H O Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Significance of the Coracoclavicular Ligament in Experimental Dislocation of the Acromioclavicular Joint

M¹,

Eb²

1974

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment of dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint (luxatio articuli acromioclavicularis, 1.a.a.) is a controversial issue. One of the reasons for this dispute is a persisting disagreement concerning the significance of the various structures influencing the stability of the joint. The present study, therefore. seeks to elucidate this subject by means of experimental clinical and radiological investigations of a post-mortem, human material. The normal anatomical structure of the acromioclavicular joint is depicted in Figure 1. The known variations of the joint as to the form and direction of the articular surfaces and the type of any possible disc have been investigated by other authors (Urist 1946, Moseley 1959,1969) and will not he discussed in the present study. The acromioclavieular ligament serves as a reinforcement for the joint capsule, its fibres connecting the upper edge of the clavicle with the upper edge of the acromion, some fibres being interwoven with the capsule. Some authors (Lanz & Wachsmuth 1959) have described a similar reinforcement of the lower part of the capsule, thus distinguishing between a cranial and a caudal acromioclavicular ligament ; however, they also stress that this is not a constant finding. Our study is, therefore, concerned with the proximal reinforcement only. In the same way, wc have not distinguished between the two parts of the coracoclavicular ligament, the trapezoid and the conoid part; for although each part has its separate function with regard to the ventral and dorsal mobility of the scapula, their clavicular function is the same, viz. to apply traction to the clavicle in a caudal direction (Urist 1946, Lanz & Wachsmuth 1959). In this study 1.a.a. is defined, clinically as well as

show abstract

The treatment of dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint

Cited by 38 publications

References 16 publications

Acromioclavicular Joint Problems in Athletes and New Methods of Management

Acromioclavicular Joint Problems in Athletes and New Methods of Management

Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the Acromioclavicular Joint Using Semitendinosus Allograft

The Significance of the Coracoclavicular Ligament in Experimental Dislocation of the Acromioclavicular Joint

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About