Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 2/2019

01-06-2019 | Acromioclavicular Joint Separation | Injuries in Overhead Athletes (J Dines and C Camp, Section Editors)

Acromioclavicular joint injuries in overhead athletes: a concise review of injury mechanisms, treatment options, and outcomes

Authors: Christopher F. Deans, Joseph M. Gentile, Matthew A. Tao

Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of the review

To review the relevant literature surrounding acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries particularly pertaining to overhead athletes.

Recent findings

The AC joint is a unique anatomic and biomechanical portion of the shoulder that can be problematic for athletes, particularly throwers, when injured. Treatment of these injuries remains a topic in evolution. Low-grade injuries (Rockwood types I & II) are typically treated non-operatively while high-grade injuries (types IV, V, and VI) are considered unstable and often require operative intervention. Type III AC separations remain the most controversial and challenging as no clear treatment algorithm has been established. A wide variety of surgical techniques exist. Unfortunately, relatively little literature exists with regard to overhead athletes specifically.

Summary

Treatment of AC joint injuries remains challenging, at times, particularly for overhead athletes. Operative indications and techniques are still evolving, and more research is needed specifically surrounding overhead athletes.
Literature
1.
Todd TW, D'Errico J Jr. The clavicular epiphyses. Am J Anat. 1928;41(1):25–50.CrossRef
2.
Corteen DP, Teitge RA. Stabilization of the clavicle after distal resection: a biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(1):61–7.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Rios CG, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD. Anatomy of the clavicle and coracoid process for reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(5):811–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mazzocca AD, Spang JT, Rodriguez RR, Rios CG, Shea KP, Romeo AA, et al. Biomechanical and radiographic analysis of partial coracoclavicular ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(7):1397–402.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Debski RE, Parsons III IM, Fenwick J, Vangura A. Ligament mechanics during three degree-of-freedom motion at the acromioclavicular joint. Ann Biomed Eng. 2000;28(6):612–8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Klimkiewicz JJ, Williams GR, Sher JS, Karduna A, Des Jardins JD, Iannotti JP. The acromioclavicular capsule as a restraint to posterior translation of the clavicle: a biomechanical analysis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 1999;8(2):119–24.CrossRef
8.
Flatow E. The biomechanics of the acromioclavicular, sternoclavicular, and scapulothoracic joints. Instr Course Lect. 1993;42:237–45.PubMed
9.
Walton J, et al. Diagnostic values of tests for acromioclavicular joint pain. JBJS. 2004;86(4):807–12.CrossRef
10.
Chronopoulos E, Kim TK, Park HB, Ashenbrenner D, McFarland EG. Diagnostic value of physical tests for isolated chronic acromioclavicular lesions. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(3):655–61.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Bisbinas I, Belthur M, Said HG, Green M, Learmonth DJA. Accuracy of needle placement in ACJ injections. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(8):762–5.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Tischer T, Salzmann GM, el-Azab H, Vogt S, Imhoff AB. Incidence of associated injuries with acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations types III through V. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(1):136–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Galatz LM, Williams GR Jr. Acromioclavicular joint injuries. Rockwood & Green’s Fractures in Adults. 2001;2:1332–64.
14.
Bontempo NA, Mazzocca AD. Biomechanics and treatment of acromioclavicular and sternoclavicular joint injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(5):361–9.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Tamaoki MJS, et al. Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocation of the shoulder in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;8.
16.
•• Virk M, et al. Operative and nonoperative treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation: a critical analysis review. JBJS reviews, 2015. 3(10). Critical review of the available literature surrounding all AC separations. This provides evidence-based recommendations on treatment strategies. Of note, they do not fine justification to warrant routine operative intervention for type III injuries.
17.
Cox JS. The fate of the acromioclavicular joint in athletic injuries. Am J Sports Med. 1981;9(1):50–3.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Mouhsine E, Garofalo R, Crevoisier X, Farron A. Grade I and II acromioclavicular dislocations: results of conservative treatment. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2003;12(6):599–602.CrossRef
19.
Bergfeld JA, Andrish JT, Clancy WG. Evaluation of the acromioclavicular joint fol lowi ng first-and second-degree sprains. Am J Sports Med. 1978;6(4):153–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Mikek M. Long-term shoulder function after type I and II acromioclavicular joint disruption. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(11):2147–50.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Bjerneld H, Hovelius L, Thorling J. Acromioclavicular separations treated conservatively: a 5-year follow-up study. Acta Orthop Scand. 1983;54(5):743–5.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Glick JM, Milburn LJ, Haggerty JF, Nishimoto D. Dislocated acromioclavicular joint: follow-up study of 35 unreduced acromioclavicular dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 1977;5(6):264–70.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Canadian OTS. Multicenter randomized clinical trial of nonoperative versus operative treatment of acute acromio-clavicular joint dislocation. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(11):479.CrossRef
24.
Beitzel K, Mazzocca AD, Bak K, Itoi E, Kibler WB, Mirzayan R, et al. ISAKOS upper extremity committee consensus statement on the need for diversification of the Rockwood classification for acromioclavicular joint injuries. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(2):271–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
•• Tang G, et al. Comparison of surgical and conservative treatment of Rockwood type-III acromioclavicular dislocation: a meta-analysis. Medicine, 2018. 97(4). This meta-analysis focuses specifically on type III injuries, which remain particularly controversial. Outcomes of operative and nonoperative management are not statistically different.
26.
Longo, U.G., et al., Surgical versus conservative management of type III acromioclavicular dislocation: a systematic review. Br Med Bull, 2017: p. 1–19.
27.
Domos P, Sim F, Dunne M, White A. Current practice in the management of Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint dislocations—national survey. J Orthop Surg. 2017;25(2):2309499017717868.CrossRef
28.
Tauber M, Gordon K, Koller H, Fox M, Resch H. Semitendinosus tendon graft versus a modified Weaver-Dunn procedure for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction in chronic cases: prospective comparative study. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(1):181–90.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Fraschini G, Ciampi P, Scotti C, Ballis R, Peretti GM. Surgical treatment of chronic acromioclavicular dislocation: comparison between two surgical procedures for anatomic reconstruction. Injury. 2010;41(11):1103–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Eschler A, Gradl G, Gierer P, Mittlmeier T, Beck M. Hook plate fixation for acromioclavicular joint separations restores coracoclavicular distance more accurately than PDS augmentation, however presents with a high rate of acromial osteolysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(1):33–9.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Andreani L, Bonicoli E, Parchi P, Piolanti N, Michele L. Acromio-clavicular repair using two different techniques. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(2):237–42.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Jensen G, et al. Has the arthroscopically assisted reduction of acute AC joint separations with the double tight-rope technique advantages over the clavicular hook plate fixation?, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology. Arthroscopy. 2014;22(2):422–30.
33.
Natera-Cisneros L, et al. Acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint injuries treatment: arthroscopic non-rigid coracoclavicular fixation provides better quality of life outcomes than hook plate ORIF. Orthop Traumatol Sur Res. 2016;102(1):31–9.CrossRef
34.
• Saier T, et al. Return-to-activity after anatomical reconstruction of acute high-grade acromioclavicular separation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):145 This study focuses on RTP following operative management of type V injuries. RTP rate, performance and ability to perform overhead activities are all discussed. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
• Porschke F, et al. Sports activity after anatomic acromioclavicular joint stabilisation with flip-button technique. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2017. 25(7): 1995-2003. This cohort focuses on postoperative type V injuries and discusses details relating to overhead athletes. While they do not find a difference in RTP rate, the timeline is much longer and the level of participation decreases.
36.
Kienast B, Thietje R, Queitsch C, Gille J, Schulz AP, Meiners J. Mid-term results after operative treatment of Rockwood grade III-V acromioclavicular joint dislocations with an AC-hook-plate. Eur J Med Res. 2011;16(2):52–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Martetschläger F, Horan MP, Warth RJ, Millett PJ. Complications after anatomic fixation and reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(12):2896–903.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Milewski MD, Tompkins M, Giugale JM, Carson EW, Miller MD, Diduch DR. Complications related to anatomic reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(7):1628–34.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Shin S-J, Kim N-K. Complications after arthroscopic coracoclavicular reconstruction using a single adjustable–loop-length suspensory fixation device in acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(5):816–24.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Acromioclavicular joint injuries in overhead athletes: a concise review of injury mechanisms, treatment options, and outcomes
Authors
Christopher F. Deans
Joseph M. Gentile
Matthew A. Tao
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Issue 2/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09542-w

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 2/2019 Go to the issue

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (W Hsu, Section Editor)

Robotic Guidance in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: a Review of Recent Literature and Commentary on a Developing Technology

Distal Radius and Wrist Fractures (E Shin, Section Editor)

Complications in the Management of Distal Radius Fractures: How Do We Avoid them?

Outcomes Research in Orthopedics (O Ayeni, Section Editor)

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Patellofemoral Instability: a Critical Review

Outcomes Research in Orthopedics (O Ayeni, Section Editor)

Outcomes Associated with Return to Sports Following Osteochondral Allograft Transplant in the Knee: a Scoping Review

Pediatric Orthopedics (B Heyworth, Section Editor)

Evolving Understanding of and Treatment Approaches to Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis

Injuries in Overhead Athletes (J Dines and C Camp, Section Editors)

Injuries of the Biceps and Superior Labral Complex in Overhead Athletes