The prevalence of intraarticular associated lesions after acute acromioclavicular joint injuries is 20%. A systematic review and meta-analysis
- 16 March 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
- Vol. 29 (7), 2024-2038
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05917-6
Abstract
Purpose To synthesise the evidence on the prevalence of associated intraarticular lesions in subjects with acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations. Methods A search in two electronic databases (PUMBMED and EMBASE) was performed from 1985 to 2019. Two independent reviewers selected studies that complied with the following inclusion criteria: (1) the study included data on surgically treated ACJ dislocation grade III–V in the Rockwood classification, (2) the ACJ injuries were acute (the surgery was performed less than 6 weeks after injury), (3) an arthroscopic evaluation of the glenohumeral joint was performed during surgery. The quality of the studies included was assessed using the tool of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results A total of 47 studies with acute ACJ injuries met the initial inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 studies (9 retrospective case series, 9 prospective case series and 3 retrospective cohort studies) presented data on associated intraarticular lesions amenable for use in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysed studies included a total of 860 subjects with acute ACJ dislocations with a male/female ratio of 6.5 and a mean age of 32 years. The meta-analysis showed a prevalence of associated intraarticular lesions in subjects with acute ACJ of 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.0–26.4%; 21 studies, 860 analysed participants; P = 0.000; I2: 74.5% random-effects model; low risk of bias). Conclusion One in five subjects with surgically treated acute ACJ dislocations will have an associated intraarticular lesion that requires further intervention. The case for a customary arthroscopic evaluation of the joint, even when an open procedure is performed to deal with the ACJ dislocation, is strong. Level of evidence IV Trial registry Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018090609.Keywords
This publication has 60 references indexed in Scilit:
- Results of Arthroscopy-Assisted TightRope Repair of Acromioclavicular DislocationsShoulder & Elbow, 2014
- A History of Shoulder SurgeryThe Open Orthopaedics Journal, 2013
- Prevalence and pattern of glenohumeral injuries among acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint instabilitiesJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 2013
- Arthroscopically Assisted 2-Bundle Anatomical Reduction of Acute Acromioclavicular Joint SeparationsThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2010
- The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and ElaborationPLoS Medicine, 2009
- Incidence of Associated Injuries with Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocations Types III through VThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2008
- A Modified Technique of Arthroscopically Assisted AC Joint Reconstruction and Preliminary ResultsClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2008
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986