| Abstract [eng] |
Objective: Although various surgical techniques exist, there is no established “gold standard“ for the surgical approach of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. The treatment options are divided into elastic fixation and rigid fixation. The objective of this work was to review the different surgical treatments, their efficacy, complications and to compare different approaches of the treatment of dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint. In the end a case of acromioclavicular joint dislocation will be presented, detailing its treatment and subsequent complications. Materials and methods: A literature review was performed by searching PubMed, Medline and Embase databases and one case report was presented. Only studies with comparative data were included. Criteria of inclusion: Studies involving patients with acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations, Studies that categorize injuries based on Rockwood classification (Type III-VI), open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), arthroscopically assisted techniques, hook plate fixation, Tight Rope system, Weaver-Dunn procedure and modifications, Kirschner-wire fixation, Bosworth-Screw, anatomical coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Exclusion criteria: non-human studies Key words: Surgical Management, Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation, arthroscopically assisted techniques, Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) Conclusion: It has a promising future with the ongoing development of techniques and modified or augmented techniques of the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. The narrative review revealed that good results can be overall achieved with rigid fixation with the hook plate. It is less time-consuming, and clinicians can achieve good results in a shorter operation time, low technical effort and no foreign body residue after its removal. The bending process of the hook plate is important to reduce postoperative complications. The tight rope system exhibits highly satisfactory outcomes and has advantages such as simultaneous therapy of glenohumeral co-pathologies. It is a minimally invasive procedure, shows lower rates of complications, has high patient acceptance, early recovery and there is no need to do an implant removal after the procedure. However, further investigations and new studies are required to assess which technique will be a gold standard in the future. It is important to take into account different surgical treatments depending on the age of the patient and physical needs, requirements after surgery and the preference and experience in the certain approaches of the surgeon. |
