Dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint is
a relatively common injury and a number of surgical interventions
have been described for its treatment. Recently, a synthetic ligament
device has become available and been successfully used, however,
like other non-native solutions, a compromise must be reached when
choosing non-anatomical locations for their placement. This cadaveric
study aimed to assess the effect of different clavicular anchorage points
for the Lockdown device on the reduction of acromioclavicular joint
dislocations, and suggest an optimal location. We also assessed
whether further stability is provided using a coracoacromial ligament
transfer (a modified Neviaser technique). The acromioclavicular
joint was exposed on seven fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders. The
joint was reconstructed using the Lockdown implant using four different
clavicular anchorage points and reduction was measured. The coracoacromial
ligament was then transferred to the lateral end of the clavicle,
and the joint re-assessed. If the Lockdown ligament was secured
at the level of the conoid tubercle, the acromioclavicular joint
could be reduced anatomically in all cases. If placed medial or
2 cm lateral, the joint was irreducible. If the Lockdown was placed
1 cm lateral to the conoid tubercle, the joint could be reduced
with difficulty in four cases. Correct placement of the Lockdown
device is crucial to allow anatomical joint reduction. Even when the
Lockdown was placed over the conoid tubercle, anterior clavicle
displacement remained but this could be controlled using a coracoacromial
ligament transfer. Cite this article:
Recurrence of back or leg pain after discectomy
is a well-recognised problem with an incidence of up to 28%. Once conservative
measures have failed, several surgical options are available and
have been tried with varying degrees of success. In this study,
42 patients with recurrent symptoms after discectomy underwent less
invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (LI-PLIF). Clinical outcome
was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form
36 (SF-36) questionnaires and visual analogue scales for back (VAS-BP)
and leg pain (VAS-LP). There was a statistically significant improvement
in all outcome measures (p <
0.001). The debate around which
procedure is the most effective for these patients remains controversial. Our results show that LI-PLIF is as effective as any other surgical
procedure. However, given that it is less invasive, we feel that
it should be considered as the preferred option.