Complications following arthroscopic fixation of acromioclavicular separations: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Over the past decade, a number of arthroscopic or arthroscopically assisted reconstruction techniques have emerged for the management of acromioclavicular (AC) separations. These techniques provide the advantage of superior visualization of the base of the coracoid, less soft tissue dissection, and smaller incisions. While these techniques have been reported to provide excellent functional results with minimal complications, discrepancies exist within the literature. This systematic review aims to assess the rate of complications following these procedures. METHODS: Two independent reviewers completed a search of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library entries up to December 2013. The terms "Acromioclavicular Joint (MeSH)" OR "acromioclavicular* (text)" OR "coracoclavicular* (text)" AND "Arthroscopy (MeSH)" OR "Arthroscop* (text)" were used. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated assuming a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was quantified using the I(2) statistic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. RESULTS: A total of 972 abstracts met the search criteria. After removal of duplicates and assessment of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 12 articles were selected for data extraction. The rate of superficial infection was 3.8% and residual shoulder/AC pain or hardware irritation occurred at a rate of 26.7%. The rate of coracoid/clavicle fracture was 5.3% and occurred most commonly with techniques utilizing bony tunnels. Loss of AC joint reduction occurred in 26.8% of patients. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic AC reconstruction techniques carry a distinct complication profile. The TightRope/Endobutton techniques, when performed acutely, provide good radiographic outcomes at the expense of hardware irritation. In contrast, graft reconstructions in patients with chronic AC separations demonstrated a high risk for loss of reduction. Fractures of the coracoid/clavicle remain a significant complication occurring predominately with techniques utilizing bony tunnels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".