• Furkan Yapici, Hanifi Üçpunar, Volkan Gür, Ahmet Sevencan, Yusuf Onur Kizilay, Resit Karaköse, and Yalkin Çamurcu.
• Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Erzincan University Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan-Turkey.
• Ulus Travma Acil Cer. 2022 Jun 1; 28 (6): 839848839-848.

BackgroundThe aim of this study is to compare open double-button (DB) and hook plate (HP) techniques in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation (ACJD) in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes and to determine which method is superior.MethodsThis retrospective comparative study included patients with ACJDs (Rockwood Type III/V) who were treated with one of these implants (22 patients with HP, 21 patients with DB) between June 2014 and February 2018.ResultsA total of 43 patients (39 men and 4 women) with a mean age of 41.8±17.4 years have participated in this study. The mean follow-up time was 20.6±7.5 months. Mean times of fluoroscopy, operation, and return to work were shorter in the DB group. Compli-cation rates were 23.8% and 54.6%, reoperation rates (including mandatory implant removals [IR]) were 4.8% and 77.3%, mean constant scores were 92.1±3.4 and 88.3±4.2, and mean Visual Analog Scale scores were 0.8±1.0 and 1.5±1.0 for the DB and HP groups, respec-tively. IR was the main reason for reoperations in the HP group, whereas the DB group's only reoperation was caused by a coracoid cutout (due to coracoid tunnel malposition) leading to redislocation. AC joint arthritis (36.4%) and subacromial osteolysis (31.9%) were com-monly encountered in the HP group. The most frequent complication of the DB group was malreduction (initial undercorrection) (9.6%).ConclusionDB was superior to HP in functional outcome, post-operative pain, complication and reoperation rates, operation and fluoroscopy times, and time to return to work. Besides, reoperation (for IR) was needed in most of the HP patients. Therefore, the open DB technique should be preferential to the HP procedure.

14 keywords...

hide…