Controversies relating to the management of acromioclavicular joint dislocations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review is to address controversies in the management of dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. Current evidence suggests that operative rather than non-operative treatment of Rockwood grade III dislocations results in better cosmetic and radiological results, similar functional outcomes and longer time off work. Early surgery results in better functional and radiological outcomes with a reduced risk of infection and loss of reduction compared with delayed surgery. Surgical options include acromioclavicular fixation, coracoclavicular fixation and coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Although non-controlled studies report promising results for arthroscopic coracoclavicular fixation, there are no comparative studies with open techniques to draw conclusions about the best surgical approach. Non-rigid coracoclavicular fixation with tendon graft or synthetic materials, or rigid acromioclavicular fixation with a hook plate, is preferable to fixation with coracoclavicular screws owing to significant risks of loosening and breakage. The evidence, although limited, also suggests that anatomical ligament reconstruction with autograft or certain synthetic grafts may have better outcomes than non-anatomical transfer of the coracoacromial ligament. It has been suggested that this is due to better restoration horizontal and vertical stability of the joint. Despite the large number of recently published studies, there remains a lack of high-quality evidence, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding these controversial issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".