Type III acromioclavicular dislocation and persistence of pain in the surgical versus conservative approach: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type III acromioclavicular dislocation is characterized by the complete rupture of the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments. The approach to acute type III acromioclavicular dislocation is still dichotomous in the literature, since both the non-surgical and surgical approaches have similar clinical results. This study is a systematic review applying the PRISMA guidelines. The data sources used were PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus. The search was carried out using the descriptors "acromioclavicular dislocation", "type III", "treatment" and "conservative". The methodological evaluation was carried out using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The scales used to assess pain were the Constant Score and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). After analysis, 7 studies were reviewed, from which 299 patients were included, 148 undergoing conservative treatment and 151 undergoing surgical treatment. The average age of the patients was 41, with a predominance of males. The average follow-up time was 5.3 years for conservative treatment and 3.7 years for surgical treatment. With regard to the functional scales, the Constant Score (CS) was higher in the surgical approach and the visual analog scale was lower. The scores for the surgical modality were CS 90.2 and VAS 0.83, while the conservative modality was CS 87.9 and VAS 1.66. There seems to be no significant difference in the persistence of pain between conservative and surgical treatment. The choice of treatment still depends on the surgeon, and risk factors and complications should help in the decision.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".