Takase Katsumi, Hata Yukihiko, Morisawa Yutaka, Goto Masafumi, Tanaka Sakae, Hamada Junichiro, Hayashida Kenji, Fujii Yasunari, Morihara Toru, Yamamoto Nobuyuki, Inui Hiroaki, Shiozaki Hiroyuki
Scientific Research Project Committee, Japan Shoulder Society, Tokyo, Japan.
JSES Int. 2020 Oct 31;5(1):51-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.09.008. eCollection 2021 Jan.
Treatment options for acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) separations are highly dependent on severity, as well as the patient's background. Furthermore, some patients can be switched from conservative to surgical treatment. In this study, we conducted a mail-based questionnaire survey of members of the Japan Shoulder Society on the administration of treatments for ACJ separations.
A questionnaire survey with 5 categories was mailed to all 1655 members of the Japan Shoulder Society (including 59 councilors): initial treatment, whether surgery was performed, indications for surgery based on severity, switching from conservative to surgical treatment, and surgical methods.
Altogether, 183 members, including 56 councilors, responded. Regarding the initial treatment, 17 respondents opted for treatment without immobilization or fixation and 166 opted for immobilization or fixation. Of the members, 11 opted for only conservative treatment whereas 172 chose surgery depending on the case; of the latter, 9 considered it for patients with a Rockwood classification of type 2 or higher; 120, for patients with type 3 or higher; and 172, for patients with types 4-6. Furthermore, 75 of 172 members had experience switching to surgical treatment during conservative treatment. For 64 of 172 members, the modified Cadenat method was the most common surgical method.
Only 11 members opted for conservative treatment of ACJ separations, and approximately 95% of physicians chose surgery. Furthermore, >70% of physicians considered surgery for an injury classified as type 3 or higher, and 37% of members performed the modified Cadenat method. However, the popularization of arthroscopic surgery may affect the selection of surgical methods in the future.
肩锁关节(ACJ)分离的治疗方案高度依赖于损伤的严重程度以及患者的背景情况。此外,一些患者可能会从保守治疗转为手术治疗。在本研究中,我们针对日本肩肘外科学会的会员开展了一项基于邮件的关于ACJ分离治疗方法的问卷调查。
向日本肩肘外科学会的1655名会员(包括59名委员)邮寄了一份包含5个类别的问卷调查:初始治疗、是否进行手术、基于严重程度的手术指征、从保守治疗转为手术治疗以及手术方法。
共有183名会员回复,其中包括56名委员。关于初始治疗,17名受访者选择不进行制动或固定的治疗方式,166名选择制动或固定。在这些会员中,11名仅选择保守治疗,而172名则根据具体情况选择手术治疗;在后者中,9名认为对于Rockwood分类为2型及以上的患者应进行手术;120名认为对于3型及以上的患者应进行手术;172名认为对于4 - 6型的患者应进行手术。此外,172名会员中有75名在保守治疗期间有转为手术治疗的经历。对于172名会员中的64名,改良Cadenat法是最常用的手术方法。
只有11名会员选择对ACJ分离进行保守治疗,约95%的医生选择手术治疗。此外,超过70%的医生认为对于3型及以上损伤应进行手术,37%的会员采用改良Cadenat法。然而,关节镜手术的普及可能会在未来影响手术方法的选择。