Top

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Published in:

01-06-2016 | Shoulder

Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction with the LARS ligament in professional versus non-professional athletes

Authors: Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli, Christopher Manning, Philip Wright, Alberto Grassi, Stefano Zaffagnini, Lennard Funk

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 6/2016

Abstract

Purpose

To compare outcomes of acromioclavicular (AC) joint reconstruction with ligament augmentation and reconstruction system (LARS) ligament in professional and non-professional athletes at 2-year minimum follow-up.

Methods

Forty-three patients (men; mean age 30, range 19–54 years) with Rockwood type III to V chronic AC joint dislocations underwent AC joint reconstruction with LARS ligament and standardized rehabilitation. Patients were divided into two groups: professionals (22) and non-professionals (21). Clinical and radiological evaluations were performed preoperatively, at 3- and 24-month follow-up.

Results

All clinical (Oxford and Constant) scores and patient satisfaction improved significantly from preoperative to follow-up intervals (p < 0.00001). However, professionals showed nonsignificant improvements from 3- to 24-month follow-up in Constant. Although groups differed preoperatively in Constant (p = 0.037), they were not different in preoperative-to-postoperative differences in clinical scores, postoperative final satisfaction and median time to return to unrestricted activity [4 (interquartiler range 3–5) months to return to full sport in professionals]. Follow-up radiographs revealed an AC joint ratio (clavicle inferior-to-superior translation as ratio of AC joint height) of 0.09 and 0.16 in 8/22 professionals, 0.19 and 0.31 in 9/21 non-professionals, 0.14 and 0.24 in 17/43 overall patients at 3- and 24-month follow-up, respectively. Slight loss of reduction (0.25 < AC joint ratio < 0.50): 21 %. There were no significant clinical–radiographic correlations. Complication: one coracoid fracture at follow-up and one wound infection.

Conclusions

AC joint reconstruction with LARS ligament did not reveal differences in clinical outcomes between groups, with 2 % of failures (re-dislocations) at 2-year minimum follow-up. Superior radiological outcomes in professionals were not correlated to clinical results.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic study–prospective comparative study, Level II.

Available only for authorised users

Bankes MJ, Crossman JE, Emery RJ (1998) A standard method of shoulder strength measurement for the Constant score with a spring balance. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7(2):116–121CrossRefPubMed

Clayton RA, Court-Brown CM (2008) The epidemiology of musculoskeletal tendinous and ligamentous injuries. Injury 39(12):1338–1344CrossRefPubMed

Collins DN (2009) Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. In: Rockwood CA, Matsen FA (eds) The shoulder, vol 1. 4th edn. Saunders-Elsevier, pp 453–526

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1999) The assessment of shoulder instability. The development and validation of a questionnaire. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81(3):420–426CrossRefPubMed

Dragoo JL, Braun HJ, Bartlinski SE, Harris AH (2012) Acromioclavicular joint injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association football: data from the 2004–2005 through 2008–2009 National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System. Am J Sports Med 40(9):2066–2071CrossRefPubMed

Fauci F, Merolla G, Paladini P, Campi F, Porcellini G (2013) Surgical treatment of chronic acromioclavicular dislocation with biologic graft vs synthetic ligament: a prospective randomized comparative study. J Orthop Traumatol 14(4):283–290CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fialka C, Michlits W, Stampfl P, Oberleitner G, Funovic P, Schmidt W, Aharinejad A, Vécsel V (2005) Biomedical analysis of different operative techniques for complete acromioclavicular joint disruptions. Osteo Trauma Care 13(3):154–159CrossRef

Flint JH, Wade AM, Giuliani J, Rue JP (2014) Defining the terms acute and chronic in orthopaedic sports injuries: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 42(1):235–241CrossRefPubMed

Fraschini G, Ciampi P, Scotti C, Ballis R, Peretti GM (2010) Surgical treatment of chronic acromioclavicular dislocation: comparison between two surgical procedures for anatomic reconstruction. Injury 41(11):1103–1106CrossRefPubMed

10.

Giannotti S, Dell’osso G, Bugelli G, Cazzella N, Guido G (2013) Surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation with LARS artificial ligament. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23(8):873–876CrossRefPubMed

11.

Lu N, Zhu L, Ye T, Chen A, Jiang X, Zhang Z, Zhu Q, Guo Q, Yang D (2013) Evaluation of the coracoclavicular reconstruction using LARS artificial ligament in acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2582-0

12.

Rios CG, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD (2007) Anatomy of the clavicle and coracoid process for reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments. Am J Sports Med 35(5):811–817CrossRefPubMed

13.

Rolf O, Hann von Weyhern A, Ewers A, Boehm TD, Gohlke F (2008) Acromioclavicular dislocation Rockwood III–V: results of early versus delayed surgical treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(10):1153–1157CrossRefPubMed

14.

Simovitch R, Sanders B, Ozbaydar M, Lavery K, Warner JJ (2009) Acromioclavicular joint injuries: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17(4):207–219CrossRefPubMed

15.

Tauber M, Gordon K, Koller H, Fox M, Resch H (2009) Semitendinosus tendon graft versus a modified Weaver-Dunn procedure for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction in chronic cases: a prospective comparative study. Am J Sports Med 37(1):181–190CrossRefPubMed

16.

Trieb K, Blahovec H, Brand G, Sabeti M, Dominkus M, Kotz R (2004) In vivo and in vitro cellular ingrowth into a new generation of artificial ligaments. Eur Surg Res 36(3):148–151CrossRefPubMed

17.

Weinstein DM, McCann PD, McIlveen SJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU (1995) Surgical treatment of complete acromioclavicular dislocations. Am J Sports Med 23(3):324–331CrossRefPubMed

Title: Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction with the LARS ligament in professional versus non-professional athletes
Authors: Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli
Christopher Manning
Philip Wright
Alberto Grassi
Stefano Zaffagnini
Lennard Funk
Publication date: 01-06-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3231-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction with the LARS ligament in professional versus non-professional athletes

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Arthroscopic image distortion—part II: the effect of lens angle and portal location in a 3D knee model

A simplified arthroscopic bone graft transfer technique in chronic glenoid bone deficiency

Bone marrow lesions and subchondral bone pathology of the knee

Proximity of the axillary nerve during bicortical drilling for biceps tenodesis

The effect of long and short head biceps loading on glenohumeral joint rotational range of motion and humeral head position

Surgical treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: hook plate versus minimally invasive reconstruction