PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 19, 2026Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine0 citationsOpen Access

Midterm Functional Outcomes after Arthroscopically Assisted Stabilization for Acute Versus Chronic Type 5 Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries

View Full Paper
LMLukas N. MuenchMRMarco-Christopher RuppAGAli Can Günenç

Key Points

  • The aim is to compare functional outcomes after ACJ stabilization for acute versus chronic type 5 injuries.
  • Cohort study design with patients undergoing ACJ stabilization from January 2015 to August 2021.
  • Included patients had isolated acute or chronic type 5 ACJ injuries with a follow-up of at least 2 years.
  • Chronic injuries were defined as surgeries performed at least 3 weeks after injury with additional biological augmentation.
  • Functional outcomes measured included Constant-Murley, ASES, NC scores, and VAS for pain.
  • 82 patients participated, with acute injuries showing CM scores of 85.3 and chronic injuries 85.5 (P = .98).
  • No significant differences were found in ASES and NC scores between groups.
  • VAS pain scores were similar: acute 1.9 and chronic 2.0 (P = .47).
  • Revision surgery rates were comparable: acute 9.3% and chronic 7.1% (P = .75).

Abstract

Background: There is limited and inconsistent evidence pertaining to comparative studies examining functional outcomes after acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) stabilization in either the acute or chronic setting for high-grade injuries. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of the study was to compare functional outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopically assisted ACJ stabilization for isolated acute or chronic type 5 ACJ injuries. It was hypothesized that patients would achieve similar functional outcomes at midterm follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent ACJ stabilization using coracoclavicular (CC) suspensory fixation with an additional acromioclavicular (AC) cerclage for isolated acute or chronic type 5 ACJ injuries from January 2015 to August 2021 and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years were identified and their records analyzed. Chronic ACJ injuries were defined as an interval of ≥3 weeks from injury to surgery according to the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine consensus statement and received an additional biological augmentation using a gracilis autograft. Functional outcome measures included the Constant-Murley (CM), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Nottingham Clavicle (NC) scores as well as the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, which were compared between groups at the final follow-up. Results: A total of 82 patients (mean age at surgery, 40.3 ± 12.7 years; 54 acute and 28 chronic injuries) with a mean follow-up of 5.5 ± 2.0 years (range, 2.0-9.9 years) were included in the study. At the final follow-up, patients with acute or chronic injuries showed similar CM (acute: 85.3 ± 13.3; chronic: 85.5 ± 12.0; P = .98), ASES (acute: 94.3 ± 10.1; chronic: 93.5 ± 14.4; P = .69), and NC (acute: 85.6 ± 14.2; chronic: 86.8 ± 14.0; P = .68) scores. Furthermore, there was no difference in VAS score for pain (acute: 1.9 ± 1.1; chronic: 2.0 ± 1.6; P = .47) and postoperative subjective satisfaction with the cosmetic appearance of the ACJ ( P = .753). Five patients in the acute group and 2 patients in the chronic group experienced failure and underwent revision surgery (acute: 9.3%; chronic: 7.1%; P = .75). Conclusion: Patients who underwent ACJ stabilization using CC suspensory fixation with an additional AC cerclage for isolated type 5 ACJ injuries in the acute setting achieved similar midterm functional outcomes, satisfaction with the cosmetic appearance of the ACJ, and failure rates to those who underwent delayed surgery with additional biological augmentation using a gracilis autograft ≥3 weeks after injury.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Muench et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6996a768ecb39a600b3ed11chttps://doi.org/10.1177/23259671251415559
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Arthroscopically Assisted Acromioclavicular Joint Stabilization in Patients Aged ≥50 Years Results in a Low Rate of Clinical Failure, Favorable Outcomes, and High Return to Activity and Work2025 · 3 citations
  2. 2Epidemiology of Acromioclavicular Joint Injury in Young Athletes2012 · 233 citations
  3. 3Arthroscopically Assisted 2-Bundle Anatomic Reduction of Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Separations2013 · 147 citations
  4. 4Arthroscopically assisted stabilization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations in a coracoclavicular Double-TightRope technique: V-shaped versus parallel drill hole orientation2013 · 67 citations
  5. 5Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Nonoperative Treatment and Arthroscopically Assisted Stabilization in Patients With Acute Rockwood Type 5 Acromioclavicular Dislocation2024 · 9 citations