Karolien Vleugels, Joren Mertens, Nick Jansen, Geert Declrercq, Olivier Verborgt
{"title":"肩锁骨重建后的临床和影像学结果:三种不同技术的单中心比较。","authors":"Karolien Vleugels, Joren Mertens, Nick Jansen, Geert Declrercq, Olivier Verborgt","doi":"10.52628/90.4.13073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This prospective, observational cohort study compares the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the modified Weaver and Dunn (WD) technique with the newer, anatomical double-button plus tendon allograft technique (DB), and the suture anchor repair plus tendon allograft (SA). The study cohort includes 53 patients, who underwent surgery for acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation Rockwood type 3, 4 and 5. Patient-reported outcome scores and clinical results, including Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Constant score (CS) results as well as loss of reduction rates on plain radiographs were compared. Nineteen patients in the DB group, 19 patients in the SA group and 15 patients in the WD group were included. Average time of follow up was 5 years. The mean VAS scores (SD) were 0.3 (0.6), 0.5 (0.8) and 1.2 (1.4) in the WD, DB and SA groups (p=0.06). There were no significant differences in DASH, SSV and Constant scores between groups. Loss of reduction on plain radiographs occurred in 4 patients in total (1 WD, 1 DB, 2 SA). The SSV score, the DASH score, the Constant score and the VAS-score revealed no statistically significant differences between the group with good alignment compared to groups with partial reduction or loss of reduction. In conclusion we can state that the use of anatomical reconstruction techniques with tendon allograft and additional button or suture anchors fixation does not affect the clinical and radiographical outcomes compared to the classic Weaver and Dunn procedure. Loss of reduction was not correlated to worse clinical outcome scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":"90 4","pages":"659-664"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical and radiographic outcome after acromioclavicular reconstruction: a single-center comparison of three different techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Karolien Vleugels, Joren Mertens, Nick Jansen, Geert Declrercq, Olivier Verborgt\",\"doi\":\"10.52628/90.4.13073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This prospective, observational cohort study compares the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the modified Weaver and Dunn (WD) technique with the newer, anatomical double-button plus tendon allograft technique (DB), and the suture anchor repair plus tendon allograft (SA). The study cohort includes 53 patients, who underwent surgery for acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation Rockwood type 3, 4 and 5. Patient-reported outcome scores and clinical results, including Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Constant score (CS) results as well as loss of reduction rates on plain radiographs were compared. Nineteen patients in the DB group, 19 patients in the SA group and 15 patients in the WD group were included. Average time of follow up was 5 years. The mean VAS scores (SD) were 0.3 (0.6), 0.5 (0.8) and 1.2 (1.4) in the WD, DB and SA groups (p=0.06). There were no significant differences in DASH, SSV and Constant scores between groups. Loss of reduction on plain radiographs occurred in 4 patients in total (1 WD, 1 DB, 2 SA). The SSV score, the DASH score, the Constant score and the VAS-score revealed no statistically significant differences between the group with good alignment compared to groups with partial reduction or loss of reduction. In conclusion we can state that the use of anatomical reconstruction techniques with tendon allograft and additional button or suture anchors fixation does not affect the clinical and radiographical outcomes compared to the classic Weaver and Dunn procedure. Loss of reduction was not correlated to worse clinical outcome scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"volume\":\"90 4\",\"pages\":\"659-664\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52628/90.4.13073\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52628/90.4.13073","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这项前瞻性、观察性队列研究比较了改良的Weaver and Dunn (WD)技术与较新的解剖双扣加同种异体肌腱移植技术(DB)和缝合锚定修复加同种异体肌腱移植(SA)的临床和影像学结果。研究队列包括53例肩锁关节(ACJ)脱位Rockwood 3型、4型和5型手术患者。比较患者报告的结局评分和临床结果,包括手臂、肩膀和手的残疾(DASH)、主观肩值(SSV)、视觉模拟评分(VAS)和恒定评分(CS)结果以及x线平片上的复位损失率。DB组19例,SA组19例,WD组15例。平均随访时间5年。WD组、DB组和SA组的平均VAS评分(SD)分别为0.3(0.6)、0.5(0.8)和1.2(1.4),差异有统计学意义(p=0.06)。各组间DASH、SSV、Constant评分差异无统计学意义。4例患者平片复位丢失(1例WD, 1例DB, 2例SA)。SSV评分、DASH评分、Constant评分和vas评分显示,与部分复位或复位丧失组相比,良好对齐组之间无统计学差异。总之,我们可以声明,与经典的Weaver和Dunn手术相比,使用同种异体肌腱移植和额外的按钮或缝合锚钉固定的解剖重建技术不会影响临床和影像学结果。复位丧失与较差的临床结果评分无关。
Clinical and radiographic outcome after acromioclavicular reconstruction: a single-center comparison of three different techniques.
This prospective, observational cohort study compares the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the modified Weaver and Dunn (WD) technique with the newer, anatomical double-button plus tendon allograft technique (DB), and the suture anchor repair plus tendon allograft (SA). The study cohort includes 53 patients, who underwent surgery for acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation Rockwood type 3, 4 and 5. Patient-reported outcome scores and clinical results, including Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Constant score (CS) results as well as loss of reduction rates on plain radiographs were compared. Nineteen patients in the DB group, 19 patients in the SA group and 15 patients in the WD group were included. Average time of follow up was 5 years. The mean VAS scores (SD) were 0.3 (0.6), 0.5 (0.8) and 1.2 (1.4) in the WD, DB and SA groups (p=0.06). There were no significant differences in DASH, SSV and Constant scores between groups. Loss of reduction on plain radiographs occurred in 4 patients in total (1 WD, 1 DB, 2 SA). The SSV score, the DASH score, the Constant score and the VAS-score revealed no statistically significant differences between the group with good alignment compared to groups with partial reduction or loss of reduction. In conclusion we can state that the use of anatomical reconstruction techniques with tendon allograft and additional button or suture anchors fixation does not affect the clinical and radiographical outcomes compared to the classic Weaver and Dunn procedure. Loss of reduction was not correlated to worse clinical outcome scores.