Arthroscopy. 2024 Dec;40(12):2798-2800. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.04.014. Epub 2024 Apr 30.
Treatment of acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint separations is dependent on a variety of factors, including severity, acuity, patient demographics, activity level, and surgeon preferences. For more severe or unstable separations (Rockwood types IIIB, IV, V, and VI), surgical intervention is typically recommended. Over 160 surgical techniques have been described, but none have emerged as a gold standard. Arthroscopic-assisted or all-arthroscopic fixation of the coracoclavicular ligaments with suture buttons has become increasingly popular due to lower complication rates compared with more rigid fixation. Configurations include single-bundle (SB) constructs and double-bundle (DB) configurations that more anatomically reconstruct the conoid and trapezoid ligaments but with longer operative times. Clinical studies with short-term follow-up have demonstrated improved maintenance of fixation for DB compared with SB constructs but no significant differences in clinical outcomes. In our experience, SB suture button-only constructs lead to unacceptable failures due to loss of reduction. We recommend either a single suture button construct augmented with allograft or DB suture button constructs for the treatment of acute AC joint separations.
急性肩锁关节(AC)分离的治疗取决于多种因素,包括严重程度、发病急缓、患者特征、活动水平和外科医生偏好。对于更严重或不稳定的分离(Rockwood 类型 IIIB、IV、V 和 VI),通常建议进行手术干预。已经描述了超过 160 种手术技术,但没有一种技术成为金标准。与更刚性固定相比,关节镜辅助或全关节镜下使用缝合纽扣固定喙锁韧带的方法由于并发症发生率较低而变得越来越流行。这些配置包括单束(SB)结构和双束(DB)结构,它们更符合解剖结构地重建了锥形韧带和梯形韧带,但手术时间更长。短期随访的临床研究表明,DB 与 SB 结构相比,固定的维持更好,但在临床结果方面没有显著差异。根据我们的经验,由于复位丢失,SB 缝合纽扣仅构建物导致不可接受的失败。我们建议使用同种异体移植物或 DB 缝合纽扣构建物来治疗急性 AC 关节分离。