The aim of this review is to address controversies in the management of dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. Current evidence suggests that operative rather than non-operative treatment of Rockwood grade III dislocations results in better cosmetic and radiological results, similar functional outcomes and longer time off work. Early surgery results in better functional and radiological outcomes with a reduced risk of infection and loss of reduction compared with delayed surgery. Surgical options include acromioclavicular fixation, coracoclavicular fixation and coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Although non-controlled studies report promising results for arthroscopic coracoclavicular fixation, there are no comparative studies with open techniques to draw conclusions about the best surgical approach. Non-rigid coracoclavicular fixation with tendon graft or synthetic materials, or rigid acromioclavicular fixation with a hook plate, is preferable to fixation with coracoclavicular screws owing to significant risks of loosening and breakage. The evidence, although limited, also suggests that anatomical ligament reconstruction with autograft or certain synthetic grafts may have better outcomes than non-anatomical transfer of the coracoacromial ligament. It has been suggested that this is due to better restoration horizontal and vertical stability of the joint. Despite the large number of recently published studies, there remains a lack of high-quality evidence, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding these controversial issues. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1595–1602

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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1657–61.