Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for :
- Author: Stefano Mortera x
- Sports & Arthroscopy x
Search for other papers by Michele Boffano in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stefano Mortera in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hazem Wafa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Raimondo Piana in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injuries are common, but their incidence is probably underestimated. As the treatment of some sub-types is still debated, we reviewed the available literature to obtain an overview of current management.
-
We analysed the literature using the PubMed search engine.
-
There is consensus on the treatment of Rockwood type I and type II lesions and for high-grade injuries of types IV, V and VI. The treatment of type III injuries remains controversial, as none of the studies has proven a significant benefit of one procedure when compared with another.
-
Several approaches can be considered in reaching a valid solution for treating ACJ lesions. The final outcome is affected by both vertical and horizontal post-operative ACJ stability. Synthetic devices, positioned using early open or arthroscopic procedures, are the main choice for young people.
-
Type III injuries should be managed surgically only in cases with high-demand sporting or working activities.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:432–437. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160085.
