This network meta‐analysis aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of suture anchors (SA), tendon grafts (TG), hook plates (HP), Tight‐Rope (TR), and EndoButton (EB) in the treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation. The Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception date to June 3, 2022. Studies included all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with the comparison of five different fixation systems among SA, TG, HP, TR, and EB were identified. All studies were reviewed, performed data extraction, and assessed the risk of bias independently by two reviewers. The primary outcomes are Constant–Murley score (CMS) improvement for assessing clinical efficacy, and complications. The second outcomes are visual analog scale (VAS) for assessing pain relief and the coracoclavicular distance (CCD) for assessing postoperative joint reduction. Version 2 of the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS‐I) were used to assess the RCTs and non‐randomized trials, respectively. The continuous outcomes were presented as mean differences (MD), and risk ratios (OR) were used for dichotomous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) results were calculated to offer a ranking of each intervention. We identified 31 eligible trials, including 1687 patients in total. HP showed less CMS improvement than TR and EB in both the Network Meta‐analysis (NMA) and pairwise meta‐analysis. HP also showed less CMS improvement than SA in NMA. For pain relief, HP performed worse than TR both in pairwise meta‐analysis and NMA. No significant differences were found for the measured value of CCD. Both TR and EB showed a lower incidence of complications than HP in pairwise meta‐analysis. The rank of SUCRA for CMS improvement was as follows: SA, TR, EB, TG, and HP; for pain relief: TR, EB, TG, SA, and HP; for CCD: HP, TR, SA, EB, and TG. For complications, HP showed the highest rank, followed by TG, EB, TR, and SA. SA shows better clinical effectiveness and reliable safety in the treatment of acute ACJ dislocation. Although HP is the most widely used surgical option currently, it should be carefully taken into consideration for its high incidence of complications.
Keywords: Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation; Internal Fixation; Network Meta‐Analysis; Rockwood Classification; Surgery
A PRISMA flow chart of article selection process for the network meta‐analysis. A total of 1102 potential titles were screened through the first search strategy, with 362 excluded due to duplications. Among the remaining 740 studies, 87 potentially qualified articles were acquired to check eligibility after carefully screening titles and abstracts and 56 studies were excluded after scanning of the entire body text. A total of 31 full‐text articles were assessed for eligibility.
Acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation is the most common sports‐related injury accounting for more than 50% of cases.[[
Given that acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular (CC) are the most important structures for holding the stability of the ACJ.[
Each surgical procedure has its advantages and disadvantages, thus a multitude of evaluation methods from various perspectives was utilized to comprehensively access postoperative efficacy. Clinically Constant–Murley score (CMS) is the most commonly used scale to assess shoulder function.[
Although all surgical procedures have been reported to achieve satisfactory clinical results, there is still debate as to which one is the best choice. The pairwise meta‐analyses have only directly compared HP with TR,[[
Our study complied with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) and AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines inclusion and exclusion criteria.
In our NMA, we identified relevant studies, including all RCTs or non‐RCT studies, to compare the efficacy and safety of SA, TR, TG, EB, and HP. For accessing literature quality assessment, papers with abstracts only and RCT protocols were excluded. Additionally, the following were all excluded: review articles, meta‐analyses, cadaveric and animal research, case report, conference paper, and incomplete or missing data. The study selection process was showed in detail in Figure 1.
Participants were adults aged 18 years or older with ACJ dislocation, without distinction in terms of ethnicity, gender, and race.
The studies which aimed at any comparison of SA, TR, TG, EB, and HP were included. Each study contained at least two of the five surgical procedures.
The following four main outcomes were obtained: Constant–Murley score (CMS), visual analog score (VAS), coracoclavicular distance (CCD), and complications.
Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched from their inception date to June 3, 2022. The following keywords were used for searching in an electronic database: acute acromioclavicular dislocation, hook plate, EndoButton, suture anchors, tightrope, Bosworth screws, screw, tension band wire, and Kirchner wires. Search strategies were described in detail in "Supplementary files." Previously published systematic reviews and meta‐analyses were also screened to search for the relevant trials. Only English‐language articles were screened in our meta‐analysis.
After the removal of duplicates, two reviewers independently retrieved and reviewed the titles and abstracts of all publications. The full‐text papers were obtained to identify the eligibility of studies for inclusion when necessary. Then, the reviewers selected potentially relevant studies according to pre‐designed criteria. If discrepancies in judgment arose, a third reviewer was consulted.
The basic information was extracted from each enrolled study using a specifically designed form. The extracted data was as follows: (
The network of four outcomes was presented summarily as graphs. The size of the circle and the thickness of the edge represented the number of patients included and the number of studies, respectively. A qualitative description of network geometry was provided.
We applied the RoB 2 for randomized trials,[
CMS improvement, VAS, and CCD were measured as mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) individually. And the complications were measured as odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) values were calculated to offer a ranking of all interventions.
The data with treatments as well as clinical outcomes were extracted. Direct comparisons of the pairwise meta‐analysis were performed using a random‐effects model. MD with 95% CI for CMS improvement, VAS, and CCD as continuous variables of outcome were provided. And OR with 95% CI for complications as a dichotomous outcome was presented. The statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed by the χ
The number of thinning intervals was set at 10 iterations. Subsequently, the direct and indirect variances of convergence were obtained through the Brooks–Gelman–Rubin method.[
The global inconsistency was measured by the consistency and inconsistency models. Model fit was compared using the deviance information criterion (DIC) and a reduction of larger than 3 in DIC shows the inconsistency existed. The local inconsistency was evaluated by the node‐splitting method.[
A total of 1102 potential titles were screened through the first search strategy, with 362 excluded for duplications. Among the remaining 740 studies, 87 potentially qualified articles were acquired to check eligibility after carefully screening titles and abstracts. With careful full‐text reading, 56 studies were excluded for the reasons shown in Figure 1. Finally, 31 articles were included in our study.[[
All the network of comparisons were shown in Figure 2. The network for CMS included 21 studies, for VAS included 15 studies, for CCD included 13 studies, and for complications included 27 studies. Lines between two nodes indicate direct evidence between two interventions, with the thickness of the line corresponding to the number of studies. The size of the nodes corresponds to the number of treatments included.
A total of 1687 patients were recorded. The network for CCM included 1252, for VAS included 1000, for CCD included 615, and for complications included 1539. Three studies were RCTs and 28 were retrospective studies. We recorded the characteristics of all included studies in Table 1.
1 TABLE Characteristics of included trials
Author Year Region Design Intervention Number of patients (M/F) Mean age (years) Follow‐up (months) CMS VAS CCD Complications Leyi 2017 China RCT TR 30(19/11) 42.80 ± 11.88 12 91.97 ± 6.70 0.97 ± 1.03 12.13 ± 1.96 3/30 HP 39(26/13) 41.79 ± 10.2 12 92.56 ± 6.37 1.92 ± 1.11 11.90 ± 2.51 5/39 Emre 2021 Turkey R TR 21(19/2) 39.2(20–60) 12 NR NR NR 12/21 HP 14(13/1) 41.8(18–85) 12 NR NR NR 7/14 Frank 2013 Germany R EB 13(NR) 43.6(18–71) 28.8(12–68.4) NR NR NR 3/13 TG 46(NR) 43.6(18–71) 28.8(12–68.4) NR NR NR 13/46 Athar 2017 Germany RCT HP 52(0/52) 44.8 ± 9.1 ≥12 NR NR NR 17/52 TR 24(1/23) 42.6 ± 11.6 ≥12 NR NR NR 13/24 P. Vulliet 2017 France R TR 22(19/3) 38.8 ± 8.7 27.7 ± 8.3 94.3 ± 4.4 0.5 ± 1.1 NR 6/22 EB 18(15/3) 37.4 ± 14.8 24.1 ± 5.0 95.0 ± 6.1 1.0 ± 1.9 NR 16/18 Si Nie 2021 China R TR 28(11/17) 35.9 ± 7.9 33.1 ± 6.0 89.3 ± 4.2 1.2 ± 0.6 NR 2/28 HP 84(33/51) 36.0 ± 8.3 32.9 ± 6.4 83.3 ± 8.8 1.8 ± 1.1 NR 12/84 Michele 2021 Italy R HP 22(16/6) 48.2(22–70) 40.6 ± 13.7 92.7 ± 5.1 NR NR 13/22 TR 22(20/2) 40.5(21–63) 32.0 ± 10.1 96.1 ± 6.2 NR NR 5/22 Jong Pil 2015 Korea R HP 24(19/5) 38.8 ± 14.2 16.0 ± 12.8 90.2 ± 9.9 1.6 ± 1.5 NR 9/24 TG 18(14/4) 42.2 ± 12.3 17.4 ± 4.3 89.2 ± 3.5 1.3 ± 1.3 NR 6/18 Sandesh 2022 India R HP 16(16/0) 44.3 ± 12.82 55.38 ± 10.9 92.38 ± 6.64 NR 7.02 ± 2.36 12/16 EB 16(13/3) 42.1 ± 11.85 32.88 ± 14.0 94.65 ± 2.38 NR 10.08 ± 4.08 11/16 Pei Yu 2022 China R HP 60(35/25) 56.43 ± 9.64 12 91.00 ± 4.82 0.97 ± 0.60 10.10 ± 3.01 2/60 TR 52(32/20) 50.2 ± 15.39 12 92.08 ± 5.80 0.88 ± 0.58 11.38 ± 2.94 0/52 Song Liu 2022 China R TR 32(23/9) 39.6 ± 8.9 12 94.8 ± 3.5 0.3 ± 0.8 12.2 ± 1.6 1/32 HP 39(29/10) 41.8 ± 10.5 12 94.4 ± 3.2 0.4 ± 0.8 12.6 ± 1.6 3/39 Hasan 2018 Iran R HP 8(7/1) 39.6 ± 16.2 19.8 ± 8.8 55 ± 22.9 0.76 ± 0.95 8.6 ± 0.9 NR EB 9(8/1) 37.3 ± 12.02 23.8 ± 19.2 91.7 ± 5.9 0.32 ± 0.89 11.6 ± 1.2 NR Omer 2020 Turkey R HP 21(6/15) 30.7 ± 9.65 32.4 (26–42) NR NR NR 8/21 EB 18(5/13) 31.7 ± 8.17 34.6 (21–45) NR NR NR 7/18 Anica 2011 Germany R HP 27(NR) 42.3(23–73) >9 91.2 ± 2.2 0.77 ± 0.2 16.7 ± 0.77 10/27 SA 25(NR) 42.3(23–73) >9 94.6 ± 1.0 0.80 ± 0.2 23.9 ± 1.2 3/25 Yon‐Sik 2020 Korea R SA 12(8/4) 42.8 ± 5.4 30.1 ± 5.5 NR 1.02 ± 1.32 7.96 ± 2.52 2/12 HP 10(7/3) 44.4 ± 6.5 33.8 ± 7.6 NR 1.14 ± 1.45 11.27 ± 2.59 4/10 L. Natera 2015 Spain R TR 20(17/3) 36(25–52) 38.40 ± 4.34 95.30 ± 2.45 0.40 ± 0.50 NR 3/20 HP 11(11/0) 41(19–55) 32.5 ± 11.64 91.36 ± 6.84 1.45 ± 1.51 NR 2/11 Alexandre 2016 Brazil R SA 12(11/1) 35.4 ± 16.1 >6 NR 1.2 ± 1.3 NR 0 TR 11(11/1) 32.4 ± 11.05 >6 NR 1.2 ± 2.0 NR 1/11 Murat 2020 Turkey. R SA 9(9/0) 39(24–56) 13.7 ± 2.7 93.6 ± 3.7 NR 15.2 ± 3.9 0/9 EB 11(11/0) 37(22–50) 12.9 ± 1.4 89.6 ± 13.6 NR 16.0 ± 4.4 1/11 Ruchu 2019 Poland R SA 11(NR) 39(18–63) 21.2 ± 13.1 95.22 ± 10.3 NR NR NR HP 4(NR) 39(18–63) 10.8 ± 3.2 78.97 ± 12.1 NR NR NR Gunnar 2012 Germany R HP 30(28/2) 39(16–68) 48(7–77) NR 1.7 ± 2.3 NR 8/30 TR 26(23/3) 39(18–54) 17(7–29) NR 1.3 ± 1.8 NR 5/26 Hamid 2017 Singapore R TR 16(15/1) 41.4 ± 12.3 23(14–35) 87.6 ± 11.7 1.0 ± 1.7 11.8 ± 1.7 0/16 HP 10(9/1) 49.2 ± 16.9 23(14–35) 77.5 ± 12.3 1.0 ± 0.7 13.6 ± 4.8 3/10 Yu‐chen 2020 China R TR 30(18/12) 39.4 ± 15.3 27.67 ± 2.48 93.70 ± 1.78 NR 11.40 ± 1.13 0/30 EB 30(12/18) 42.20 ± 13.5 28.30 ± 2.51 93.27 ± 1.59 NR 11.47 ± 1.19 1/30 You‐Shui 2015 China R HP 24(19/5) 36.0 ± 6.7 18.3 ± 8.0 86.1 ± 5.7 NR NR 16/24 TR 24(18/6) 35.4 ± 8.6 18.8 ± 7.5 97.5 ± 2.7 NR NR 6/24 Cheng 2018 China R SA 25(15/20) 43.7 ± 15.6 26.2(24–35) NR NR NR 10/25 HP 24(19/5) 42.0 ± 14.9 26.2(24–35) NR NR NR 9/21 Guheng 2018 China R TG 8(6/2) 49.0 ± 17.8 29.8 ± 6.0 NR NR NR 0/8 HP 8(5/3) 41.3 ± 13.4 30.9 ± 7.8 NR NR NR 0/8 Guangsi 2021 China R TR 16(11/5) 44.9 ± 11 27 95.7 ± 7.3 0.4 ± 0.6 NR 1/16 HP 19(10/9) 40.2 ± 8.7 30 93.7 ± 6.6 0.7 ± 0.6 NR 1/19 Thomas 2018 Germany RCT HP 27(26/1) 37.65 ± 9.66 40.1 ± 23.64 90.19 ± 7.79 NR 19.38 ± 6.42 NR EB 29(28/1) 34.24 ± 9.68 30.75 ± 1.41 95.31 ± 4.42 NR 16.92 ± 4.16 NR Jun Zhang 2017 China R EB 30(NR) 40.83 ± 10.2 24 91.2 ± 7.0 NR NR 0/30 HP 30(NR) 37.80 ± 13.9 24 89.6 ± 4.0 NR NR 5/30 Yingliang 2021 China R SA 32(28/4) 34 39.69 ± 7.42 NR NR 11.62 ± 2.54 NR EB 28(26/2) 32 37.86 ± 8.23 NR NR 16.78 ± 5.53 NR Sujie 2021 China R HP 146(45/101) 40.2 3 87.4 ± 5.2 0.9 ± 0.7 NR 96/146 EB 146(47/99) 38.7 3 88.4 ± 3.9 0.5 ± 0.5 NR 77/146 Alberto 2015 Italy R TR 10(9/1) 43.3 ± 12.9 43.3 ± 12.8 96.5 ± 4.9 NR 12.51 ± 3.48 6/10 TG 8(7/1) 50.9 ± 10.4 62.7 ± 18.78 93.3 ± 7.0 NR 16.5 ± 4.4 5/8
1 Abbreviations: CCD, coracoclavicular distance; CMS, Constant–Murley score; EB, EndoButton; HP, hook plates; NR, not record; R, retrospective study; RCT, randomized controlled study; SA, suture anchors; TG, tendon grafts; TR, Tight‐Rope; VAS, visual analog scale.
According to the ROBINS‐I tool analysis, Table 2 presented the quantification of the risk of bias assessment of retrospective studies. The outcome showed that the overall risk of bias in all eligible studies was moderate, indicating all of the studies were of high quality. However, selection bias was inevitable for none of these studies were randomized studies. The risk of bias analysis of the included three RCTs was evaluated by using RoB 2 tool analysis. The results were listed in Figure 3. Some concerns in the randomization process were mentioned in two studies, and the bias of measurement of the outcome was described in detail in one study. No study reported the deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, and selection. Thus, two domains, the randomization process and measurement of the outcome, possibly led to bias.
2 TABLE Evaluation of the quality of studies with the ROBINS‐I
Bias Domain Bias due to confounding Selection of participants Classification of interventions Deviations from intended interventions Bias due to missing data Measurement of outcomes Selection of the reported result Overall risk of bias Song 2022 Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Sandesh 2022 Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Pei Yu 2022 Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Yingliang 2021 Moderate Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Sujie 2021 Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Si Nie 2021 Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Michele 2021 Moderate Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Guangsi 2021 Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Emre 2021 Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Yon‐Sik 2020 Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Omer 2020 Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Murat 2020 Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Yu‐chen 2020 Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Klinika 2019 Serious Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Ying‐Cheng 2018 Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Hasan 2018 Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Guheng 2018 Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate P. Vulliet 2017 Moderate Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Jun Zhang 2017 Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Hamid 2017 Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Alexandre 2016 Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate You‐Shui 2015 Moderate Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate L. Natera 2015 Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Jong Pil 2015 Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Alberto 2015 Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Frank 2013 Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Nasser 2012 Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Anica 2011 Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate
Figure 4 showed a funnel plot assessing publication bias, and the results indicated that small studies did not affect the primary (CMS and complications) and secondary outcomes (VAS, CCD).
The results of CMS were shown in Table 3. The lower‐left triangle indicated pairwise meta‐analysis, and the upper‐right triangle indicated NMA. The shadows represented significant differences. HP showed less CMS improvement than TR and EB in both pairwise meta‐analyses [TR vs. HP, MD = 3.83, 95% CI: (0.99, 6.67); EB vs. HP, MD = 3.66, 95% CI: (0.30, 7.02)], and NMA [TR vs. HP, MD = 3.66, 95% CI: (1.47, 5.85); EB vs. HP, MD = 3.57, 95% CI: (0.71, 6.43)]. HP also showed less CMS improvement than SA in pairwise meta‐analysis [SA vs. HP, MD = 5.91, 95% CI: (0.58, 11.24)]. While other than that, no significant differences were found both in pairwise meta‐analysis and NMA. Based on the results obtained from SUCRA, close to 100% represents better CMS. Among them, SA ranked best (88.1%), followed by TR (66.0%), EB (63.7%), TG (18.2%), and HP (13.9%) (Figure 5).
3 TABLE Results of the pairwise and network meta‐analysis of CMS (MD, 95% CI)
SA 2.34 (−3.21, 7.88) 6.26 (−1.52, 14.04) 2.25 (−3.38, 7.88) 5.91 (0.58, 11.24) N = 1, 4.00 (−4.39, 12.39) EB 3.92 (−2.36, 10.20) −0.09 (−3.18, 3.00) 3.57 (0.71, 6.43) TG −4.01 (−9.79, 1.76) −0.35 (−6.08, 5.38) N = 2, −0.36 (−1.19, 0.47) N = 1, −3.20 (−8.92, 2.52) TR 3.66 (1.47, 5.85) N = 2, 8.03 (−4.06, 20.12) N = 5, 3.66 (0.30, 7.02) N = 1, −1.00 (−5.28, 3.28) N = 9, 3.83 (0.99, 6.67) HP
- 2 Note: Upper‐right triangle shows the results of the network meta‐analysis. Lower‐left triangle shows the results of the pairwise meta‐analyses. The N represents the numbers of studies which compared the two interventions directly. For MD with 95%CI, a negative MD favor the lower‐right intervention. For OR with 95%CI, a OR >1 favor the lower‐right intervention. Statistically significant findings are shaded.
- 3 Abbreviations: CCD, coracoclavicular distance; CI, confidence interval; CMS, Constant–Murley Score; EB, EndoButton; HP, hook plates; MD, mean difference; OR, odd ratio; SA, suture anchors; TG, tendon grafts; TR, Tight‐Rope; VAS, visual analog scale.
The results of VAS were shown in Table 4. HP showed less pain relief than TR both in pairwise meta‐analysis [TR vs. HP, MD = −0.39, 95% CI: (−0.65, −0.14)] and NMA [TR vs. HP, MD = −0.39, 95% CI: (−0.63, −0.16)]. HP did not differ significantly from EB in the NMA but showed less pain relief than EB in pairwise meta‐analysis [EB vs. HP, MD = −0.40, 95% CI: (−0.54, −0.26)]. Other than that, no other significant differences were found. Based on the results obtained from SUCRA, close to 100% represents better pain relief. Among them, TR ranked best (77.2%), followed by EB (69.4%), TG (58.6%), SA (25.4%), and HP (19.4%) (Figure 5).
4 TABLE Results of the pairwise and network meta‐analysis of VAS (MD, 95% CI)
SA 0.32 (−0.26, 0.90) 0.28 (−0.76, 1.32) 0.37 (−0.09, 0.83) −0.02 (−0.43, 0.40) EB −0.04 (−1.08, 0.99) 0.05 (−0.40, 0.50) −0.34 (−0.74, 0.05) TG 0.09 (−0.89, 1.08) −0.30 (−1.26,0.66) N = 1, 0.00 (−1.39, 1.39) N = 1, 0.50 (−0.49, 1.49) TR −0.39 (−0.63, −0.16) N = 2, 0.03 (−0.08, 0.14) N = 2, −0.40 (−0.54, −0.26) N = 1, −0.30 (−6.33, 5.73) N = 8, −0.39 (−0.65, −0.14) HP
- 4 Note: Upper‐right triangle shows the results of the network meta‐analysis. Lower‐left triangle shows the results of the pairwise meta‐analyses. The N represents the numbers of studies which compared the two interventions directly. For MD with 95%CI, a negative MD favor the lower‐right intervention. For OR with 95%CI, a OR >1 favor the lower‐right intervention. Statistically significant findings are shaded.
- 5 Abbreviations: CCD, coracoclavicular distance; CI, confidence interval; CMS, Constant–Murley Score; EB, EndoButton; HP, hook plates; MD, mean difference; OR, odd ratio; SA, suture anchors; TG, tendon grafts; TR, Tight‐Rope; VAS, visual analog scale.
The results of the CCD were shown in Table 5. TG showed larger CCD than TR in pairwise meta‐analysis [TG vs. TR, MD = 3.99, 95% CI: (0.26, 7.72)]. But given that there is only one set of direct comparisons, this result is not credible. No other significant differences were found between each other. For the results of SUCRA, close to 100% means better reduction. Among them, HP ranked best (73.7%), followed by TR (64.4%), SA (59.2%), EB (32.8%), and TG (19.4%) (Figure 5).
5 TABLE Results of the pairwise and network meta‐analysis of CCD (MD, 95% CI)
SA −1.31 (−5.12, 2.50) −3.70 (−12.47, 5.07) 0.29 (−4.32, 4.90) 0.59 (−3.14, 4.32) N = 2, −3.23 (−7.47, 1.02) EB −2.39 (−10.79, 6.01) 1.60 (−2.25, 5.44) 1.90 (−1.20, 4.99) TG 3.99 (−3.47, 11.45) 4.29 (−3.77, 12.35) N = 1, 0.07 (−0.52, 0.66) N = 1, 3.99 (0.26, 7.72) TR 0.30 (−2.74, 3.34) N = 2, 2.00 (−8.30, 12.30) N = 3, 1.43 (−1.50, 4.35) N = 4, 0.14 (−1.09, 0.80) HP
- 6 Note: Upper‐right triangle shows the results of the network meta‐analysis. Lower‐left triangle shows the results of the pairwise meta‐analyses. The N represents the numbers of studies which compared the two interventions directly. For MD with 95%CI, a negative MD favor the lower‐right intervention. For OR with 95%CI, a OR >1 favor the lower‐right intervention. Statistically significant findings are shaded.
- 7 Abbreviations: CCD, coracoclavicular distance; CI, confidence interval; CMS, Constant–Murley Score; EB, EndoButton; HP, hook plates; MD, mean difference; OR, odd ratio; SA, suture anchors; TG, tendon grafts; TR, Tight‐Rope; VAS, visual analog scale.
The results of complications are shown in Table 6. TR showed a lower incidence of complications than HP both in pairwise meta‐analysis [TR vs. HP, MD = 0.56, 95% CI: (0.30, 1.00)] and NMA [TR vs. HP, MD = 0.52, 95% CI: (0.31, 0.88)]. EB showed a higher incidence of complications than TR [EB vs. TR, MD = 0.56, 95% CI: (0.30, 1.00)] but lower than that of HP [EB vs. HP, MD = 0.58, 95% CI: (0.38, 0.88)] in pairwise meta‐analysis. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found between each other. For the results of SUCRA, close to 100% means a lower incidence of complications. Among them, SA ranked lowest (81.5%), followed by TR (75.3%), EB (38.7%), TG (36.9%), and HP being the highest incidence of complications (17.7%) (Figure 5).
6 TABLE Results of the pairwise and network meta‐analysis of complications (OR, 95% CI)
SA 0.53 (0.17, 1.70) 0.51 (0.12, 2.14) 0.82 (0.28, 2.43) 0.43 (0.16, 1.14) N = 1, 0.37 (0.01, 10.18) EB 0.96 (0.31, 2.99) 1.55 (0.70, 3.45) 0.81 (0.40, 1.62) N = 1, 0.76 (0.18, 3.22) TG 1.62 (0.53, 4.98) 0.84 (0.29, 2.46) N = 1, 0.28 (0.01, 7.62) N = 2, 4.92 (1.39, 17.44) N = 1, 1.11 (0.16, 7.51) TR 0.52 (0.31, 0.88) N = 3, 0.52 (0.24, 1.14) N = 4, 0.58 (0.38, 0.88) N = 2, 0.83 (0.23, 3.00) N = 12, 0.56 (0.30, 1.00) HP
- 8 Note: Upper‐right triangle shows the results of the network meta‐analysis. Lower‐left triangle shows the results of the pairwise meta‐analyses. The N represents the numbers of studies which compared the two interventions directly. For MD with 95%CI, a negative MD favor the lower‐right intervention. For OR with 95%CI, a OR >1 favor the lower‐right intervention. Statistically significant findings are shaded.
- 9 Abbreviations: CCD, coracoclavicular distance; CI, confidence interval; CMS, Constant–Murley Score; EB, EndoButton; HP, hook plates; MD, mean difference; OR, odd ratio; SA, suture anchors; TG, tendon grafts; TR, Tight‐Rope; VAS, visual analog scale.
We ranked the surgical procedures according to the two dimensions of clinical efficacy and complication rate (Figure 6). In general, SA showed the best clinical efficacy with the lowest complication rate. Additionally, the high loss of reduction rates should be paid more attention to the groups of EB (21.94%), HP (10.85%), and SA (9.57%). It should also be noted that the HP group was related to a higher ratio of erosion of the acromion and stiffness. The total complication incidence of HP (34.8%), TG (37.5%), and TR (35.8%) are similar, both more than double that of TR (14.8%) and SA (13.0%) (Table 7).
7 TABLE Number and percentage of complications among the five different fixation systems [No. (%)]
Complication HP (N = 710) TR (N = 384) TG (N = 80) EB (N = 310) SA (N = 115) Loss of reduction 77(10.85%) 16(4.17%) 6(7.5%) 68(21.94%) 11(9.57%) Impaired wound healing 9(1.27%) 5(1.30%) — — 1(0.87%) Impingement syndrome 9(1.27%) — — — — Plate/screw breakage or loosening 21(2.96%) 7(1.82%) 7(8.75%) 7(2.26%) — Neural injury 1(0.14%) — 1(1.25%) — — Bone fracture 6(0.85%) 2(0.52%) 3(3.75%) 7(2.26%) — Deep infection 1(0.14%) 1(0.26%) — 1(0.32%) — Erosion of the acromion 36(5.07%) 1(0.26%) — — — Internal fixation reaction 1(0.14%) 2(0.52%) 8(10%) 1(0.32%) — Osteolysis of distal clavicle — — — — 1(0.87%) AC joint osteoarthritis 19(2.68%) 17(4.43%) 2(2.5%) 1(0.32%) 2(1.74%) Stiffness 44(6.2%) 4(1.04%) — — — Ligament ossification 21(2.96%) 2(0.52%) 3(3.75%) 22(7.1%) — Skin numbness 2(0.28%) — — 1(0.32%) — Muscle tear and fraying — — — 3(0.97%) — Total 34.79% 14.84% 37.50% 35.81% 13.04%
The results of inconsistency were listed in Table 8. For all outcomes, no local inconsistencies were detected (p values >0.05).
8 TABLE The result of inconsistency analysis
CMS VAS CCD Complications Local Inconsistency Comparison p value Comparison p value Comparison p value Comparison p value HP versus TR 0.86 HP versus TR 0.59 HP versus TR 0.71 HP versus TR 0.39 HP versus TG 0.80 HP versus TG NA HP versus TG NA HP versus TG 0.98 HP versus EB 0.91 HP versus EB 0.66 HP versus EB 0.38 HP versus EB 0.20 HP versus SA 0.72 HP versus SA 0.26 HP versus SA 0.60 HP versus SA 0.53 TR versus TG 0.80 TR versus TG 0.99 TR versus TG NA TR versus TG 0.70 TR versus EB 0.96 TR versus EB 0.58 TR versus EB 0.38 TR versus EB 0.08 TR versus SA NA TR versus SA NA TR versus SA 0.60 TR versus SA 0.52 TG versus EB NA TG versus EB NA TG versus EB NA TG versus EB 0.75 EB versus SA 0.72 EB versus SA 0.26 EB versus SA NA EB versus SA 0.83 Global inconsistency Comparison p value Comparison p value Comparison p value Comparison p value HP versus TR 0.001 HP versus TR 0.85 HP versus TR 0.001 HP versus TR 0.015 HP versus TG 0.90 HP versus TG 0.30 HP versus TG 0.54 HP versus TG 0.75 HP versus EB 0.01 HP versus EB 0.23 HP versus EB 0.09 HP versus EB 0.55 HP versus SA 0.03 HP versus SA 0.76 HP versus SA 0.93 HP versus SA 0.09
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive and integrated NMA to pool data focusing on CMS, VAS, CCD, and complications of five widely applied surgical procedures including HP, TR, TG, EB, and SA in the surgical treatment of ACJ; this information can be used to help surgeons choosing the optimal surgical procedure for their actual situations. The key findings of this systematic review and NMA here show that: (
The CC ligament is one of the most important stabilizing structures of the ACJ.[
Regarding the clinical outcome measurements, the CMS is an effective indicator to evaluate the patient's functional recovery. Previous studies have proved that all of them have a significant improvement in CMS, indicating that all techniques could have sufficient functional recovery.[[
As for the postoperative shoulder pain, our results show that TR had a slightly lower VAS than HP. This conclusion has already been proved by previous head‐to‐head meta‐analyses.[[
The CCD is the main imaging indicator for postoperative confirmation of reduction. Though the direct comparison of TG and TR shows that TR had a better CCD than TG, the results of MNA are more plausible for only one direct comparison was available. Our results show that there is no difference in the effect of these five surgical procedures on repositioning, which is also consistent with previous pairwise meta‐analyses.[[
The risk of surgery‐related complications is considered to be an important disadvantage of all surgical procedures. Our pooled data suggest that HP has a higher rate of complications than TR. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of previous pairwise meta‐analyses.[[
The strength of this study was the inclusion of a large number of articles. Including 31 articles and combining the results from 1102 patients allows for an adequate assessment of the five surgical procedures to compare the clinical efficacy, imaging findings, and safety. Meanwhile, a major limitation of this systematic review is that a small proportion of the included studies are RCTs. Moreover, the complications such as the loss of reduction are not uniformly reported across all studies. Nevertheless, given the high quality of the included studies, the results of our comparison are sufficiently convincing.
In conclusion, considering all the criteria evaluated, SA shows better clinical effectiveness and reliable safety in the treatment of acute ACJ dislocation. Although HP is the most widely used surgical option currently, it should be carefully considered for its high incidence of complications.
Yuan Yan: data curation, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation; Mingxin Liao: writing—reviewing, formal analysis; Huahao Lai: data curation, writing—original draft preparation; Ziyang Xu: data curation; Haobin Chen: data curation; Wenhan Huang: writing—reviewing; Hui Yu: writing—reviewing and editing, project administration; Yu Zhang: writing—reviewing, supervision, funding acquisition.
This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2021YFC24007004), research project outlay of Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (2021YFC2400704) and Startup Fund for Scientific Research, Fujian Medical University (2019QH1221). No other relationships or activities appear to have influenced the submitted work.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Not applicable.
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
By Yuan Yan; Mingxin Liao; Huahao Lai; Ziyang Xu; Haobin Chen; Wenhan Huang; Hui Yu and Yu Zhang
Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author