Comparison of Double Endobutton and Clavicular Hook Plate in Acromioclavicular Joint Disruption: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) disruptions are corrected by surgery either with an endobutton or a hook plate. The results in the long term were found to be similar in many randomized controlled trials. This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the functional outcome and complications of double endo button versus clavicular hook plate (CHP) for ACJ disruption (Rockwood types III-VI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two authors independently searched related articles from electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science) till January 26, 2022. The data were extracted from the related articles and analyzed by Stata software. For bias calculation of each study, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the RevMan 5.4 software were used. RESULTS: 14 cohort studies, 2 randomized control trial studies, and 1 case-control study including patients were selected in this meta-analysis. The results of our study showed a significantly higher Constant-Murley Score (WMD 5.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-9.36), Visual Analog Scale (WMD- 0.63, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.46]) and University of California at Los Angeles shoulder score (UCLA) scale (WMD 3.32, 95% CI [2.87, 3.77]) for double endobutton group. At the same time, some complications like implant failure were more common in the double endobutton group. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows better functional and clinical outcomes of shoulder joint for the treatment of acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) disruption cases (Rockwood types III-VI) with no need for secondary operation, unlike the CHP. Complications like subacromial erosion, ACJ arthrodesis, and infection rate are higher in the CHP group, whereas the chance of implant failure is higher in the double endobutton group.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".