Choice of Acromioclavicular Dislocation Treatment Should Not Be Influenced by Risk of Development of Acromioclavicular Osteoarthritis

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: It is currently unknown to what degree surgical or nonoperative treatment of acromioclavicular (AC) dislocation influences the development of osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to evaluate AC OA after surgical and nonoperative treatment for AC dislocations, compare OA prevalence between treatment options, and compare OA prevalence between the injured and contralateral shoulder. METHODS: Articles reporting on the prevalence of OA after surgical or nonoperative treatment of an AC dislocation with a minimal 2-year follow-up were included. AC OA presence was extracted for the injured and contralateral shoulder. Treatment categories were defined based on anatomical variation in the reattachment of ligaments: AC fixation, coracoclavicular (CC) fixation, AC and CC fixation, Bosworth screw synthetic graft, tendon graft, and conservative. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. RESULTS: Ninety-four articles were included for qualitative analysis, and 7 articles were included for meta-analysis (n = 3,812; follow-up = 2.0-24.2 years; mean age 37.6 ± 10.4 years). A total of 3,483 patients underwent surgical treatment, and 329 patients underwent conservative treatment. OA prevalence ranged from 6.7%-29.3% between 7 pooled treatment categories. Most included studies had a follow-up <10 years (94%) and OA prevalence increased with time, regardless of treatment option. There was no difference in OA prevalence between the injured and contralateral shoulder (p = 0.120). MINORS scores were varied, ranging from poor to very good. CONCLUSION: The pooled AC OA prevalence of the 7 treatment categories ranged from 6.7% for the CC fixation surgical group to 29.3% for the conservative treatment group. However, the included studies were predominantly of low quality and had varying follow-up periods, with most having relatively short follow-up durations. No difference in AC OA prevalence was found between the injured and contralateral shoulder. Based on the available evidence, treatment choice for AC dislocation should not be influenced by the potential development of AC AO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.