Lim Brandon, Chai Ariel, Jassim Samher, Shaalan Mohamed
Department of General Surgery, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2025 Apr 30;5(3):477-486. doi: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2025.04.002. eCollection 2025 Aug.
Treatment for acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocations aims to restore joint congruity and mechanical stability. However, the best operative technique remains a controversial issue. This systematic review and meta-analysis thus aim to compare the clavicular hook plate (HP) vs. the TightRope (TR) in the management of ACJ dislocation.
A systematic search was conducted using Embase, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases to retrieve all relevant studies. Outcomes were operative time (minutes), intraoperative blood loss (mL), clinical outcome measures, postoperative coracoclavicular distance (CCD), and complications. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies tool for nonrandomized studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized control trials.
The literature search yielded 221 studies, of which 12 studies enrolling a total of 683 patients were included in this review, with 371 in the HP group and 312 in the TR group. Meta-analysis of comparative studies between HP and TR fixation showed that HPs had better Constant-Murley scores (mean difference (MD), -3.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), -5.37 to -1.75; = .0001), and less intraoperative blood losses (MD, 41.27; 95% CI, 30.67-51.87; < .00001). Conversely, TR fixation had better visual analog scale scores (MD, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76; < .0001), and shorter postoperative CCD (MD, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.19-0.71; = .0008). There was no significant difference in operative time (MD, 1.75; 95% CI, -16.55-20.05; = .85), University of California, Los Angeles shoulder scores (MD, 0.34; 95% CI, -0.81 to 1.48; = .56), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (MD, 0.39; 95% CI, -0.90 to 1.68; = .55), and complications (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.00-6.62; = .05).
TR fixation in ACJ dislocations had similar operative times, complication rates, University of California, Los Angeles scores, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores to HP fixation. The HP group had less intraoperative blood loss and better Constant-Murley scores. Conversely, TR fixation had better visual analog scale scores and smaller postoperative CCD. Future randomized control trials on this subject would aid in increasing the validity of our findings.
肩锁关节(ACJ)脱位的治疗旨在恢复关节的一致性和机械稳定性。然而,最佳手术技术仍是一个有争议的问题。因此,本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较锁骨钩钢板(HP)与TightRope(TR)在肩锁关节脱位治疗中的效果。
使用Embase、Scopus、PubMed和Web of Science数据库进行系统检索,以获取所有相关研究。结局指标包括手术时间(分钟)、术中出血量(毫升)、临床结局指标、术后喙锁间距(CCD)和并发症。使用非随机研究的方法学指数工具评估非随机研究的方法学质量,使用Cochrane偏倚风险2工具评估随机对照试验的质量。
文献检索共获得221项研究,其中12项研究共纳入683例患者,本综述纳入了371例HP组患者和312例TR组患者。HP与TR固定的比较研究的荟萃分析表明,HP组的Constant-Murley评分更好(平均差(MD),-3.56;95%置信区间(CI),-5.37至-1.75;P = 0.0001),术中出血量更少(MD,41.27;95%CI,30.67 - 51.87;P < 0.00001)。相反,TR固定的视觉模拟评分更好(MD,0.55;95%CI,0.34 - 0.76;P < 0.0001),术后CCD更短(MD,0.45;95%CI,0.19 - 0.71;P = 0.0008)。手术时间(MD,1.75;95%CI,-16.55至20.05;P = 0.85)、加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校肩关节评分(MD,0.34;95%CI,-0.81至1.48;P = 0.56)、美国肩肘外科医师评分(MD,0.39;95%CI,-0.90至1.68;P = 0.55)和并发症(OR,2.57;95%CI,1.00 - 6.62;P = 0.05)方面无显著差异。
肩锁关节脱位的TR固定在手术时间、并发症发生率、加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校评分和美国肩肘外科医师评分方面与HP固定相似。HP组术中出血量更少,Constant-Murley评分更好。相反,TR固定的视觉模拟评分更好,术后CCD更小。未来关于该主题的随机对照试验将有助于提高我们研究结果的有效性。