Conservative therapy for acromioclavicular joint dislocation - Rockwood III: a cohort analysis.

Q4 Medicine
J Kovařík, M Krtička, D Ira, P Dráč, K Benešová, P Korpa
{"title":"Conservative therapy for acromioclavicular joint dislocation - Rockwood III: a cohort analysis.","authors":"J Kovařík, M Krtička, D Ira, P Dráč, K Benešová, P Korpa","doi":"10.33699/PIS.2024.103.5.181-186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Acromioclavicular joint dislocation (AC) - Rockwood III (RIII) is a controversial topic with a wide range of therapeutic approaches. Operative therapy offers dozens of stabilization methods, which only confirms the absence of a \"gold standard\". The currently available literature tends to favor conservative therapy, involving several consecutive phases of physiotherapeutic care after the pain has subsided. The aim is to gradually improve the mobility of the shoulder and subsequently strengthen and stabilize the entire shoulder girdle.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A study was conducted between 01/2014 and 12/2017 in patients with Rockwood III type AC joint injury. Each patient was educated in detail about the surgical and conservative treatment options and expected outcomes. Patients who opted for conservative therapy were invited to evaluate the results of the therapy at a minimum of one year after the injury. Each patient was clinically examined. Coracoclavicular (CC) distances were measured, and the presence of arthrosis and calcifications was assessed on follow-up comparison scans of both shoulders. The Constant Score (CS) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score were evaluated in the patients. The results were statistically processed and compared to each other and/or to the healthy shoulder.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 37 patients were evaluated with a mean CS of 96.1 and a mean ASES score of 92.02. Lateral clavicle instability was found in 64% of the patients (n=24). The mean difference of the CC interval versus the healthy side was 8.6 mm. There was no statistically significant difference between the CS of the injured and healthy shoulder. No statistically significant association was found between CS and lateral clavicle prominence, AC joint stability, and workload, or between return to work and workload.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conservative therapy of AC joint dislocation - type RIII provides good functional outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":52413,"journal":{"name":"Rozhledy v Chirurgii","volume":"103 5","pages":"181-186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rozhledy v Chirurgii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33699/PIS.2024.103.5.181-186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Acromioclavicular joint dislocation (AC) - Rockwood III (RIII) is a controversial topic with a wide range of therapeutic approaches. Operative therapy offers dozens of stabilization methods, which only confirms the absence of a "gold standard". The currently available literature tends to favor conservative therapy, involving several consecutive phases of physiotherapeutic care after the pain has subsided. The aim is to gradually improve the mobility of the shoulder and subsequently strengthen and stabilize the entire shoulder girdle.

Methods: A study was conducted between 01/2014 and 12/2017 in patients with Rockwood III type AC joint injury. Each patient was educated in detail about the surgical and conservative treatment options and expected outcomes. Patients who opted for conservative therapy were invited to evaluate the results of the therapy at a minimum of one year after the injury. Each patient was clinically examined. Coracoclavicular (CC) distances were measured, and the presence of arthrosis and calcifications was assessed on follow-up comparison scans of both shoulders. The Constant Score (CS) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score were evaluated in the patients. The results were statistically processed and compared to each other and/or to the healthy shoulder.

Results: A total of 37 patients were evaluated with a mean CS of 96.1 and a mean ASES score of 92.02. Lateral clavicle instability was found in 64% of the patients (n=24). The mean difference of the CC interval versus the healthy side was 8.6 mm. There was no statistically significant difference between the CS of the injured and healthy shoulder. No statistically significant association was found between CS and lateral clavicle prominence, AC joint stability, and workload, or between return to work and workload.

Conclusion: Conservative therapy of AC joint dislocation - type RIII provides good functional outcomes.

肩锁关节脱位的保守治疗- Rockwood III:队列分析。
肩锁关节脱位(AC) - Rockwood III (RIII)是一个有争议的话题,治疗方法广泛。手术治疗提供了几十种稳定方法,这只是证实了“金标准”的缺失。目前可用的文献倾向于保守治疗,包括疼痛消退后连续几个阶段的物理治疗护理。目的是逐渐提高肩部的机动性,随后加强和稳定整个肩带。方法:选取2014年1月至2017年12月Rockwood III型AC关节损伤患者为研究对象。每位患者详细了解手术和保守治疗方案及预期结果。选择保守治疗的患者被邀请在受伤后至少一年评估治疗结果。每位患者均接受临床检查。测量喙锁骨(CC)距离,并通过对双肩的随访比较扫描评估关节和钙化的存在。对患者进行恒评分(CS)和美国肩肘外科医生(ASES)评分。对结果进行统计处理,并相互比较和/或与健康肩部进行比较。结果:37例患者的平均CS为96.1,平均ASES评分为92.02。64%的患者锁骨外侧不稳(n=24)。CC间隔与健康侧的平均差异为8.6 mm。损伤肩关节与健康肩关节的CS无统计学差异。CS与锁骨外侧突出、AC关节稳定性和工作量之间,或重返工作与工作量之间没有统计学意义的关联。结论:保守治疗iii型AC关节脱位可获得良好的功能效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rozhledy v Chirurgii
Rozhledy v Chirurgii Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信