A retrospective comparative study in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation: ligaments reconstruction with allogenic tendon versus Endobutton technique

王古衡,李双,陈亚兰,邢树国,侯建伟,茅天,谭军,邓爱东,谢仁国
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn311653-20190830-06169
2020-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of reconstruction of trapezium ligament, conoid ligament and acromioclavicular ligament with allogeneic tendon and Endoboutton reduction and fixation in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation.Methods:From February 2010 to August 2016, 16 patients with acromioclavicular joint dislocation were treated, including 8 patients who used allogeneic tendons to reconstruct trapezoid ligament, conoid ligament and the upper and lower parts of acromioclavicular ligament, and 8 patients who used Endobouton technique to reconstruct coracoclavicular ligament. The follow-up of patients' overall satisfaction, observation of shoulder shape, measurement of shoulder joint activity, X-ray evaluation of acromioclavicular joint reduction and maintenance were conducted. The Constant-Murley score and DASH score were used to evaluate the functional recovery of shoulder and upper extremity, and the visual analog scale (VAS) was used to obtain the pain of patients. The follow-up results of the two methods were compared.Results:The follow-up period ranged from 34 to 60 months with an average of 48.8 months. All the patients were satisfied with the treatment results and the shape of shoulder joint was normal. In the allogeneic tendon group, the Constant-Murley score was 94.5±5.2, the DASH score was 2.1±2.6, and the VAS score was 0.4±1.1; in the Endobutton group, the Constant-Murley score was 92.8±3.7, the DASH score was 2.2±2.0, and the VAS score was 0.3±0.7. There were no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:The technique of allogeneic tendon reconstruction and Endoboutton in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation can achieve satisfactory results, and the allogeneic tendon is more close to the biomechanical requirements, which is an effective method.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?