Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes of surgery for acromioclavicular joint dislocation using different angled hook plates: a prospective study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Hook plate fixation is widely used to treat acromioclavicular joint dislocation. However, there are many post-operative complications affecting the effect of treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the clavicular hook plate with different hook angles as a method of treatment in AC joint dislocation, and to guide the clinical application of hook plate.

Methods

We prospectively analysed 54 patients who were diagnosed with AC joint dislocation and treated with hook plate fixation by different hook angles. The patients were randomised into three groups: the −20° < AHP < 0° group, the 20° > AHP > 0° group and the 40° > AHP > 20° group. All patients were required to conform to regular follow-up post-operatively. Routine imaging to the shoulder was obtained to evaluate maintenance of the dislocation and the implant. Constant-Murley criteria were used to evaluate functional results.

Results

There were 19 patients in the −20° < AHP < 0° group, with one lost to follow-up, 22 patients in the 20° > AHP > 0° group, with two male patients lost to follow-up, and one female patient excluded because of no follow-up consent, and 19 patients in the 40° > AHP > 20° group, with one female and one male patient lost to follow-up. The Constant score was 61.8 ± 12.8, 74.7 ± 9.2 and 70.7 ± 9.4 before implant removal, and 78.8 ± 8.3, 87.1 ± 6.4 and 85.0 ± 6.1 after implant removal in the −20° < AHP < 0°, 20° > AHP > 0° and 40° > AHP > 20° groups, respectively. The functional results of the 20° > AHP > 0° and 40° > AHP > 20° groups were significantly better than the −20° < AHP < 0° group (P < 0.05), but the functional results of the 20° > AHP > 0° and 40° > AHP > 20° groups were not statistically significant. The CCD was 98.1 ± 4.8%, 107.5 ± 5.1% and 105.5 ± 4.1% before implant removal, and 98.8 ± 4.6%, 108.3 ± 4.8% and 107.2 ± 3.3% after implant removal in the three groups, respectively. The CCD of the 20° > AHP > 0° and 40° > AHP > 20° groups were statistically significantly different from the −20° < AHP < 0° group (P < 0.001). However, there was no statistical difference between the 20° > AHP > 0° group and the 40° > AHP > 20° group. Post-operative persistent pain occurred in 18.5% of all patients, post-operative stiffness occurred in 25.9% of all patients and 24.0% of patients had subacromial erosion.

Conclusions

Hook plate treatment for AC joint dislocation can achieve the desired results, but the efficacy was significantly different depending on the different angles of the hook plate. AHP should be controlled within the range of 0–40° as much as possible when making clinical decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oussedik S (2007) Injuries to the clavicle and acromioclavicular joint. Br J Hosp Med 68(4):M68–M70. doi:https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2007.68.Sup4.23194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Willimon SC, Gaskill TR, Millett PJ (2011) Acromioclavicular joint injuries: anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment. Phys Sportsmed 39(1):116–122. doi:https://doi.org/10.3810/psm.2011.02.1869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Larsen E, Bjerg-Nielsen A, Christensen P (1986) Conservative or surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation. A prospective, controlled, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68(4):552–555

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenorn M, Pedersen EB (1974) A comparison between conservative and operative treatment of acute acromioclavicular dislocation. Acta Orthop Scand 45(1):50–59

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Weaver JK, Dunn HK (1972) Treatment of acromioclavicular injuries, especially complete acromioclavicular separation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 54(6):1187–1194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Browne JE, Stanley RF, Tullos HS (1977) Acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Comparative results following operative treatment with and without primary distal clavisectomy. Am J Sports Med 5(6):258–263

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Faraj AA, Ketzer B (2001) The use of a hook-plate in the management of acromioclavicular injuries. Report of ten cases. Acta Orthop Belg 67(5):448–451

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shoji H, Roth C, Chuinard R (1986) Bone block transfer of coracoacromial ligament in acromioclavicular injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res 208:272–277

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nadarajah R, Mahaluxmivala J, Amin A, Goodier DW (2005) Clavicular hook-plate: complications of retaining the implant. Injury 36(5):681–683. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2004.08.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chandrasenan J, Badhe S, Cresswell T, Beer J (2007) The clavicular hook plate: consequences in three cases. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 33(5):557–559. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-006-6028-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoffler CE, Karas SG (2010) Transacromial erosion of a locked subacromial hook plate: case report and review of literature. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19(3):e12–e15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.10.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin HY, Wong PK, Ho WP, Chuang TY, Liao YS, Wong CC (2014) Clavicular hook plate may induce subacromial shoulder impingement and rotator cuff lesion—dynamic sonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg Res 9:6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-9-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Muramatsu K, Shigetomi M, Matsunaga T, Murata Y, Taguchi T (2007) Use of the AO hook-plate for treatment of unstable fractures of the distal clavicle. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127(3):191–194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-006-0284-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Flinkkilä T, Ristiniemi J, Lakovaara M, Hyvönen P, Leppilahti J (2006) Hook-plate fixation of unstable lateral clavicle fractures: a report on 63 patients. Acta Orthop 77(4):644–649. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670610012737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. ElMaraghy AW, Devereaux MW, Ravichandiran K, Agur AM (2010) Subacromial morphometric assessment of the clavicle hook plate. Injury 41(6):613–619. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.12.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shih CM, Huang KC, Pan CC, Lee CH, Su KC (2015) Biomechanical analysis of acromioclavicular joint dislocation treated with clavicle hook plates in different lengths. Int Orthop 39(11):2239–2244. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2890-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim YS, Yoo YS, Vijayachandran N, Jin H, Song HS (2015) In vivo analysis of acromioclavicular joint motion after hook plate fixation using three-dimensional computed tomography. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24(7):1106–1111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rockwood CJ, Williams G, Yound D (1998) Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. In: Rockwood CJ, Matsen F (eds) The shoulder, vol I. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 483–553

    Google Scholar 

  19. Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214:160–164

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chen CH, Dong QR, Zhou RK, Zhen HQ, Jao YJ (2014) Effects of hook plate on shoulder function after treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Int J Clin Exp Med 7(9):2564–2570

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Yoon JP, Lee YS, Song GS, Oh JH (2017) Morphological analysis of acromion and hook plate for the fixation of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):980–986. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-3987-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shangyu People’s Hospital of Shaoxing City, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China

    Ding Xu, Jukun Chen, Liefeng Ji & Jiang Zhu

  2. The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children’s Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Peng Luo

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery, Aachen University Medical Center, Aachen, Germany

    Luxu Yin & WeiKang Wang

Authors
  1. Ding Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peng Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jukun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liefeng Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luxu Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. WeiKang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jiang Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ding Xu.

Additional information

DingXu and PengLuo are co-first authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, D., Luo, P., Chen, J. et al. Outcomes of surgery for acromioclavicular joint dislocation using different angled hook plates: a prospective study. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 41, 2605–2611 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3611-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3611-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation