Arthroscopically Assisted Coraco-Clavicular Ligament Reconstruction in Treatment of Acute Displaced Distal Clavicle Fractures Provides Good to Excellent Shoulder Function Despite Low Union Rates and High Complication Rates: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the clinical outcome of arthroscopically assisted coraco-clavicular ligament (AACCL) reconstruction for treatment of displaced distal clavicle fractures in terms of union rate, complications, and shoulder function.

METHODS

A review of the online databases Medline and Embase was conducted on January 1, 2021, according to PRISMA guidelines. The review was registered prospectively in the PROSPERO database. Clinical studies reporting union rate, complications, and shoulder function were included. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 14 studies eligible for inclusion, 12 retrospective case series and 2 nonrandomized retrospective comparative studies. All studies reported on shoulder function, union rate, and complications. The overall shoulder function was good to excellent according to Constant-Murley score, with mean scores ranging from 81.8 to 96.2 [I2 (inconsistency) = 0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0% to 61%)]. The mean union rate ranged from 70% to 100% [I2 = 32.6% (95% CI = 0% to 63.4%)], and the mean complication rate ranged from 0 to 28.6% [I2 = 43.4% (95% CI = 0% to 68.4%)]. The most common complications were hardware related (3.1%), wound related (2.7%), and postoperative shoulder stiffness (2.2%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review analyzed clinical studies that evaluated the outcome of AACCL reconstruction in displaced distal clavicle fractures. The overall findings of this systematic review are that the union rate can be as low as 70% with this technique and the complication rate as high as 28.6%. Overall shoulder function was good to excellent according to Constant-Murley score. As the literature surrounding this topic is heterogeneous, further comparative clinical studies are required to assess superiority compared with other traditional techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V: systematic review of level III and IV studies.