Acromioclavicular joint dislocation Rockwood type III and V show no difference in functional outcome and 91% recovered well without the need for surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations are common injuries, but the indication for and timing of surgery is debated. The objective of the study was to evaluate the results after acute AC joint dislocations Rockwood type III and V treated nonsurgically with the option of delayed surgical intervention. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study with clinical, radiological and patient-reported outcome assessment at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year after acute AC joint dislocation. Patients aged 18-60 with acute AC joint dislocation and a baseline panorama (Zanca) radiograph with an increase in the coracoclavicular distance of >25% compared to the uninjured side were eligible for inclusion. All patients were treated nonsurgically with 3 months of home-based training and with the option of delayed surgical intervention. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Secondary outcomes were surgery yes/no and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included. Fifty-seven patients were Rockwood type III and 38 patients were type V. There were no statistically significant differences in WOSI and SPADI between patients with type III and V injuries at any time point. Nine patients (9.5%) were referred for surgery; seven type III and two type V (ns). CONCLUSION: Ninety-one percent of patients with acute AC joint dislocation Rockwood type III and V recovered without surgery and there were no differences in outcome scores between type III and V at any time point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".