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.