Long-Term Shoulder Function after Type I and II Acromioclavicular Joint Disruption

Background Acromioclavicular joint separations are very common lesions, with the majority falling into Rockwood classification type I and II. It is generally agreed that conservative treatment of these injuries leads to good functional results, although there are some studies that suggest these injuries are associated with a high incidence of persistent symptoms. Hypothesis Type I and II acromioclavicular joint disruption significantly impairs long-term shoulder function. Study Design Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods The shoulder function of 23 patients who were treated for type I or II acromioclavicular joint disruption was evaluated at a mean of 10.2 years after injury. The objective and subjective measures of the injured shoulder were assessed using Constant, University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale, and Simple Shoulder Test scores and were compared with results of the uninjured shoulder. Results At an average follow-up of 10.2 years, 12 of 23 patients (52%) reported at least occasional acromioclavicular joint symptoms. The average Constant score for the injured shoulder was 70.5 and 86.8 for the uninjured shoulder (P < .001). The average University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale score for the injured shoulder was 24.1 and 29.2 for the uninjured shoulder (P < .001). The average Simple Shoulder Test value for the injured shoulder was 9.7 and 10.9 for the uninjured shoulder (P < .002). The extent of acromioclavicular joint disruption and acromioclavicular joint width did not have any statistically significant influence on the shoulder functional scores. Conclusion Type I and II acromioclavicular joint disruptions impair long-term shoulder function in about half of patients 10 years after injury.

[1]  David N. Collins,et al.  Disorders of the Acromioclavicular Joint , 2009 .

[2]  R. Arciero,et al.  Evaluation and Treatment of Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries , 2007, The American journal of sports medicine.

[3]  Robert D Mehrberg,et al.  Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. , 2004, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[4]  A. Farron,et al.  Grade I and II acromioclavicular dislocations: results of conservative treatment. , 2003, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[5]  W. M. Walsh,et al.  Shoulder strength following acromioclavicular injury , 1985, The American journal of sports medicine.

[6]  L. Hovelius,et al.  Acromioclavicular Separations Treated Conservatively: A 5-year Follow-up Study , 1983 .

[7]  C. Petersson Degeneration of the acromioclavicular joint. A morphological study. , 1983, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[8]  J. Cox The fate of the acromioclavicular joint in athletic injuries , 1981, The American journal of sports medicine.

[9]  J. Andrish,et al.  Evaluation of the acromioclavicular joint fol lowi ng first- and second-degree sprains , 1978, The American journal of sports medicine.

[10]  J. Glick,et al.  Dislocated acromioclavicular joint: follow-up study of 35 unreduced acromioclavicular dislocations , 1977, The American journal of sports medicine.