Comparison between hook plate fixation with and without coracoclavicular ligament suture for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations.

BACKGROUND

Hook plates are widely used for repair of acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations. However, it is unclear whether repair of torn coracoclavicular (CC) ligament is necessary. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the hook plate fixation with direct CC ligament repair for acute ACJ dislocation in comparison with the hook plate fixation without direct CC ligament repair.

METHODS

The study included 120 patients with acute ACJ dislocations who underwent surgery. The patients were divided into 73 patient groups with Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) hook plate fixation and direct CC ligament repair and 47 patient groups without direct CC ligament repair. For clinical assessments, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, constant score, and time for implant removal were recorded. The corcoclavicular distance (CCD) and the CCD ratio were used for the evaluation of reduction. Typical reported complications, such as secondary dislocation, implant failure or loosening, peri-implant fracture, acromion osteolysis, and postoperative ACJ arthrosis, were also analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the clinical outcomes between the two groups. There was no difference in the timing of implant removal between the two groups. The last follow-up CCD was not statistically significant between group with direct CC ligament repair and without repair (9.1 ± 3.3 vs. 9.0 ± 2.8, respectively, p > 0.05). The last follow-up CCD ratio showed significant differences between the two groups (12.6 ± 25.5% vs. 26.3 ± 39.7, respectively, p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the complication rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The hook plate fixation with direct CC ligament repair group was better for maintenance of reduction than that of the hook plate fixation without direct CC ligament repair group. Although, there were no differences of clinical outcomes and complications between two groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Study.