Implant fixationversus conservative treatment for Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation：a systematic review
10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2016.13.017
- VernacularTitle:植入物内固定与保守疗法修复Rockwood Ⅲ型肩锁关节脱位的系统评价
- Author:
Genwen SUN
;
Tao LI
;
Laiman SU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- From:
Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research
2016;20(13):1946-1953
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:Although there is a general consensus with regard to the treatment of Rockwood types I, II, IV, V and VI injuries, the treatment of type III injury is inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of implant fixation and conservative treatment for Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation. METHODS:Studies were identified from databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Biological Medicine, VIP, CNKI and Wanfang Database) up to May 2015. Eligible studies that investigated and compared the effectiveness and/or complications of implant fixation and conservative treatment for Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation and provided sufficient data were included. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:In total, eight studies were included. Implant fixation (n=207) included the Bosworth technique, Clavicle Hook Plate technique, the TightRopeTM system (titanium plate and Arthrex fiber suture), Weaver-Dunn technique (coracoacromial ligament displacement, instead of coracoclavicular ligament fixation), Phemister technique (Kirschner wire fixation) and the use of a poly dioxanone sutures cord. The conservative treatments (n=137) consisted of immobilisation management with a sling, Kenny-Howard brace, or with a sling and clavicle fastening taping tape or a simple brake, or with a sling or tape. There were no significant differences in the Constant score (P=0.90) and infection rate (P=0.07) between the two groups. The rate of satisfaction with aesthetic outcomes was higher in the implant fixation group (P < 0.000 01), although the incidence of coracoclavicular ligament calcification was also higher (P=0.03) in this group. The time to resumption of normal work and normal activities was shorter after conservative treatment than that after implant fixation treatment. However, implant fixation could return to the game faster. These results indicate that both implant fixation and conservative treatments can result in satisfactory levels of shoulder function; however, the rehabilitation time was shorter after conservative treatment. Although implant fixation results in superior aesthetics, the risk of coracoclavicular ligament calcification is higher than that with conservative treatment. Time to resumption of normal work and normal activities was shorter after conservative treatment.
