Indian Journal of Orthopaedics

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2018  |  Volume : 52  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 418--422

Functional outcome of modified weaver dunn technique for acromioclavicular joint dislocation


Ravi Gupta, Munish Sood, Anubhav Malhotra, Gladson David Masih, Tanu Khanna, Mukta Raghav 
 Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Munish Sood
Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh - 160 030
India

Abstract

Background: The debate about the ideal surgical procedure for acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation is still unresolved and newer techniques are being evolved continuously. The present study evaluates functional outcome of ACJ reconstruction using the modified Weaver Dunn procedure. Materials and Methods: 35 patients (26 males, 9 females) with ACJ dislocation, between the age group of 18–48 years (mean age 31 years), were operated using modified Weaver Dunn procedure at our center from May 2005 to June 2010. The dominant side was involved in 25 patients (22 right, 13 left). The mean period from the time of injury to the surgery was 14 days (range 4–26 days). All the patients were assessed with Oxford shoulder score and the time required to return to preinjury level was recorded. Results: At the mean followup of 95 months (range 72–120 months), the mean Oxford Shoulder Score improved from 25 ± 7.2 to 43 ± 6.9. 85% (30 out of 35) patients had satisfactory results, while 15% (5 out of 35) had mild shoulder dysfunction using this scoring system. Five patients had radiological evidence of Grade 2 ACJ subluxation. Out of these five patients, two developed ossification around the coracoclavicular ligament. Three patients had intermittent mild pain without any functional disability, and one had a moderate restriction of shoulder movements. Conclusion: ACJ reconstruction, using the modified Weaver Dunn procedure in ACJ dislocation, is a reproducible procedure and provides a good functional outcome.



How to cite this article:
Gupta R, Sood M, Malhotra A, Masih GD, Khanna T, Raghav M. Functional outcome of modified weaver dunn technique for acromioclavicular joint dislocation.Indian J Orthop 2018;52:418-422


How to cite this URL:
Gupta R, Sood M, Malhotra A, Masih GD, Khanna T, Raghav M. Functional outcome of modified weaver dunn technique for acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Feb 25 ];52:418-422
Available from: http://www.ijoonline.com/text.asp?2018/52/4/418/236129


Full Text

 Introduction



Acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation accounts for 40% of all shoulder injuries in athletes and high demand professionals.[1],[2],[3] The majority of these injuries are low grade (Grade 1, 2) and the good functional outcome can be expected with nonoperative management. However, higher grade injuries (Grade 3–6) may require surgical intervention, especially in high demand professionals and athletes requiring overhead abduction activities.[4],[5]

Commonly used techniques for management of ACJ dislocation include: (1) fixation of ACJ using wires/screw/sutures/hook plate, etc., which can be done along with repair of ligaments, (2) coracoclavicular fixation using screw/anchors/free tendon graft with ACJ reconstruction, and (3) excision of distal part of clavicle along with coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction, especially in arthritic joint.[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] However, the best operative treatment for ACJ reconstruction remains debatable.[5],[9],[10],[11]

In the recent literature, open or arthroscopic fixation of coracoclavicular construct using synthetic loops, flip buttons, tendon autografts or allografts has been advocated but with mixed results.[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] These newer techniques have often been compared with modified Weaver-Dunn procedure which has given consistently reproducible and satisfactory results.[14],[17],[18],[19]

The literature is scanty on functional outcome of surgical management of ACJ reconstruction available from India. After a thorough search on PubMed, we could find only one original paper from India showing functional outcome at mean followup of 22 months after the ACJ reconstruction using arthroscopic technique.[20] The present study is first of its kind, which is evaluating long term functional results of ACJ reconstruction using the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure from India.

 Materials and Methods



The present study is a retrospective case series of patients with ACJ dislocation operated with the modified Weaver-Dunn reconstruction technique at our center between May 2005 and June 2010. Patients with acute injury (less than 4 weeks) were included while those with chronic injury, preexisting shoulder problem or cervical degeneration were excluded. Out of these 42 patients, 35 were available for the final followup. These patients were classified on the basis of Rockwood classification,[5] out of these 35 patients, seven were Grade 3, 12 were Grade 4 while 16 Grade 5.

Operative procedure

Surgery was performed under general anesthesia in the beach chair position. A “strap” incision was made starting 2–3 cm medial and posterior to the ACJ, extending toward the tip of the coracoid process [Figure 1]. The lateral end of clavicle and ACJ were exposed. The resection of 1 cm of the lateral end of the clavicle was performed. The direction of resection of distal end of clavicle was from posterosuperior and lateral to anteroinferior and medial. The coracoacromial ligament was identified and its boundaries were defined [Figure 2]a. The coracoacromial ligament was detached from its attachment on the acromion with a small piece of bone to enhance bone to bone healing [Figure 2]b and [Figure 3]. A small curette was used to open the medullary canal from the lateral end of the clavicle. Two drill holes were made 5–6 mm apart and 5–7 mm from the edge of lateral end of the clavicle. Care is taken, that the drill holes are neither too near to the resected end of the clavicle nor too near to each other. A double loop no. 2 PDS (polydioxanone sutures, Ethicon, Inc., Johnson and Johnson, Somerville, NJ™) was passed underneath the coracoid for future use as a coracoclavicular reinforcement. The detached coracoacromion ligament along with the bones piece is pulled into the medullary canal of the clavicle using two no. 5 Ethibond sutures (Ethicon, Inc., Johnson and Johnson, Somerville, NJ™) through the two holes already drilled in the lateral end of the clavicle [Figure 2]b and [Figure 2]c and repaired with the clavicle. This reconstruction was reinforced by the double loop no. 2 PDS (Ethicon, Inc., Johnson and Johnson, Somerville, NJ™) already passed underneath the coracoid process and tied over the clavicle [Figure 2]d and [Figure 4].{Figure 1}{Figure 2}{Figure 3}{Figure 4}

The arm was placed in a sling for 6 weeks. Suture removal was done at 10–14 days. During this phase, active movements of the elbow, wrist and fingers were allowed. From 6 to 12 weeks, exercise regimen to mobilize the shoulder joint and to attain full range of movements was followed. Patients were advised not to lift heavy weights during these 12 weeks and gradually return to preinjury level in the next 4–6 weeks. Oxford shoulder score [21] was used to assess the functional outcome and the time to return to preinjury level was recorded.

 Results



The average age of patients was 31 years (range 18–48 years). There were 26 males and nine females, 22 patients sustained injury to the right shoulder and 13 patients injured their left shoulder. Dominant side was involved in 25 patients while in 10 patients non-dominant side was involved.

According to Rockwood classification, seven were Grade 3, 12 were Grade 4 while 16 Grade 5. The mean period from the time of injury to the surgery was 14 days (range 4–26 days). The mean followup was 95 months (range 72–120 months).

At the final followup, the mean Oxford Shoulder Score improved from 25 ± 7.2 (range 9–32) to 43 ± 6.9 (range 21–48) in our case series. The improvement in Oxford Shoulder Score is statistically significant (P = 0.0001). About 85% of the patients (30 out of 35) had satisfactory results, while 15% (5 out of 35) had mild shoulder dysfunction using this scoring system.

Five patients had radiological evidence of Grade 2 ACJ subluxation at the time of final followup. Out of these five patients, two developed ossification around the coracoclavicular ligament. Three patients had intermittent mild pain without any functional disability, and one had a moderate restriction of shoulder movements.

 Discussion



ACJ dislocation injuries constitute 9%–12% of the injuries around the shoulder joint.[22],[23] These injuries are common in males, especially athletes and high demand professionals requiring overhead abduction [24],[25] and are commonly seen in the second and third decade of life.[24],[25]

Rockwood classified injuries of the ACJ into six grades which have been useful in terms of prognosis and treatment.[4],[5],[10],[11] Most of the studies agree that the treatment of incomplete injuries to the ACJ (Grade 1 and 2) should be nonoperative.[10],[11] The treatment options for these injuries include a period of rest, analgesics and return to activity after symptoms subside. Management of the Grade 3 injuries is still debatable, with various studies documenting no difference in results between nonoperative and operative methods.[10],[11],[12] However, other studies advocate surgical intervention in Grade 3 injuries in sportspersons and high demand professionals.[3],[14],[17] The patients of Grade 3 injuries in our series (n = 7) were symptomatic patients who were either sportspersons (n = 5) or laborers (n = 2).

There are numerous surgical techniques described for ACJ reconstruction.[26] However, consensus on the best treatment option for ACJ reconstruction is still not clear. The use of K-wires and tension band wiring has often been used for fixation of ACJ reconstruction. However, this technique is associated with complications such as increased incidence of degenerative ACJ disease, breakage of the pins and migration of the K-wires into the lung, the heart, and even large vessels.[27],[28] The hook plate though commonly used for ACJ dislocation, has been associated with complications such as acromial fractures, ACJ arthritis and a definite second surgery for plate removal.[29] ACJ stabilization with a screw between clavicle and coracoid is a rigid construct which prevents movements between the clavicle and coracoid leading to complications such as fatigue and failure of the implant, reduced joint motion, and early joint degeneration. This implant is also associated with higher failure rate.[30],[31]

Weaver-Dunn procedure [7] was initially described in 1972; it utilizes the coracoacromial ligament to substitute the torn coracoclavicular ligament. However, biomechanical studies have revealed that this nonanatomic construct alone is only 30% as strong as the native ligaments and there is a tendency to displace the clavicle anteriorly and can often lead to a recurrent deformity.[32] Therefore, several modifications of the Weaver Dunn procedure have been described. We in our case series have used reinforcement of conventional procedure using a double loop no. 2 PDS (Ethicon, Inc., Johnson and Johnson, Somerville, NJ™) sling passed underneath the coracoid process and tied over the clavicle. We feel that this reinforcement maintains the reduced position of the joint and prevents subluxation till the healing of the reconstructed ligament is complete. However, in five of our cases, we found radiological evidence of Grade 2 subluxation of ACJ. Two out of these five patients developed ossification around the coracoclavicular ligament. It could either be due to micromotion due to instability in the area leading to new bone formation or inadequate saline wash of the bone dust which was left after the resection of the lateral end of the clavicle. Now, we have started using an adequate copious saline wash to remove bone dust in all of our cases.

In the recent literature trend is shifting towards arthroscopic fixation of coracoclavicular construct using synthetic loops, flip buttons, tendon autografts or allografts.[12],[13] However, the arthroscopic technique has a long learning curve, and higher cost of the implant is another issue.[16] Furthermore, the current literature has mixed views about arthroscopic technique and flexible coracoclavicular constructs.[15],[16],[33]

The mean Oxford Shoulder Score improved from 25 ± 7.2 to 43 ± 6.9 in our case series. 15% (5 out of 35) had mild shoulder dysfunction [Figure 5]. All the patients returned to preinjury level of function at a mean of 4.5 months (range 4–7 months) from date of surgery. The mean Oxford shoulder score and results in our case series are either similar or better to the recent newer techniques.[34],[35]{Figure 5}

The strength of the present study is that it has a long term followup. However, being a retrospective case series, it has a relatively lower level of evidence.

 Conclusion



ACJ reconstruction using the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure in ACJ dislocation still remains one of the gold standard and reproducible procedure in all the patients including sportspersons and high demand professionals.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Beim GM. Acromioclavicular joint injuries. J Athl Train 2000;35:261-7.
2Carofino BC, Mazzocca AD. The anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction: Surgical technique and indications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:37-46.
3Trainer G, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD. Practical management of grade III acromioclavicular separations. Clin J Sport Med 2008;18:162-6.
4Luis GE, Yong CK, Singh DA, Sengupta S, Choon DS. Acromioclavicular joint dislocation: A comparative biomechanical study of the palmaris-longus tendon graft reconstruction with other augmentative methods in cadaveric models. J Orthop Surg Res 2007;2:22.
5Rockwood CA Jr., Williams GR, Young DC. Injuries to the acromioclavicular joint. In: Rockwood CA Jr., Green DP, Bucholz RW, editors. Rockwood and Green's Fractures in adults. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 1341-407.
6Mumford EB. Acromioclavicular dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1941;23:799-802.
7Weaver JK, Dunn HK. Treatment of acromioclavicular injuries, especially complete acromioclavicular separation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1972;54:1187-94.
8Rokito AS, Oh YH, Zuckerman JD. Modified Weaver-Dunn procedure for acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Orthopedics 2004;27:21-8.
9Jeon IH, Dewnany G, Hartley R, Neumann L, Wallace WA. Chronic acromioclavicular separation: The medium term results of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using braided polyester prosthetic ligament. Injury 2007;38:1247-53.
10Beitzel K, Cote MP, Apostolakos J, Solovyova O, Judson CH, Ziegler CG, et al. Current concepts in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Arthroscopy 2013;29:387-97.
11Salzmann GM, Walz L, Buchmann S, Glabgly P, Venjakob A, Imhoff AB, et al. Arthroscopically assisted 2-bundle anatomical reduction of acute acromioclavicular joint separations. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:1179-87.
12Porschke F, Schnetzke M, Aytac S, Studier-Fischer S, Gruetzner PA, Guehring T, et al. Sports activity after anatomic acromioclavicular joint stabilisation with flip-button technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017;25:1995-2003.
13Takase K, Yamamoto K. Arthroscopic procedures and therapeutic results of anatomical reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments for acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016;102:583-7.
14Hegazy G, Safwat H, Seddik M, Al-Shal EA, Al-Sebai I, Negm M, et al. Modified Weaver-Dunn procedure versus the use of semitendinosus autogenous tendon graft for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. Open Orthop J 2016;10:166-78.
15Gupta P, Kansal G, Srivastav S, Agarwal S. Arthroscopic fixation using TightRope device for acute acromioclavicular joint disruptions. J Arthrosc Joint Surg 2016;3:7-12.
16Gupta R. Editorial. J Arthrosc Joint Surg 2016;3:1-2.
17Kumar V, Garg S, Elzein I, Lawrence T, Manning P, Wallace WA, et al. Modified Weaver-Dunn procedure versus the use of a synthetic ligament for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2014;22:199-203.
18Bircher HP, Jülke M, Thür C. Reconstruction of chronic symptomatic acromioclavicular joint dislocation (Rockwood III-V) using the modified Weaver-Dunn method 24 operated patients (1988-1995), surgical technique, results. Swiss Surg 1996;(2):46-50.
19Pavlik A, Csépai D, Hidas P. Surgical treatment of chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocation by modified Weaver-Dunn procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2001;9:307-12.
20Chaudhary D, Jain V, Joshi D, Jain JK, Goyal A, Mehta N, et al. Arthroscopic fixation for acute acromioclavicular joint disruption using the TightRope device. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2015;23:309-14.
21Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:593-600.
22Mazzocca AD, Arciero RA, Bicos J. Evaluation and treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:316-29.
23Lemos MJ. The evaluation and treatment of the injured acromioclavicular joint in athletes. Am J Sports Med 1998;26:137-44.
24Pallis M, Cameron KL, Svoboda SJ, Owens BD. Epidemiology of acromioclavicular joint injury in young athletes. Am J Sports Med 2012;40:2072-7.
25Thomas K, Litsky A, Jones G, Bishop JY. Biomechanical comparison of coracoclavicular reconstructive techniques. Am J Sports Med 2011;39:804-10.
26Spencer HT, Hsu L, Sodl J, Arianjam A, Yian EH. Radiographic failure and rates of re-operation after acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: A comparison of surgical techniques. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:512-8.
27Norrell H Jr., Llewellyn RC. Migration of a threaded Steinmann pin from an acromioclavicular joint into the spinal canal. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1965;47:1024-6.
28Mazet RJ. Migration of a Kirschner-wire from the shoulder region into the lung: Report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg 1943;25:477-83.
29Sim E, Schwarz N, Höcker K, Berzlanovich A. Repair of complete acromioclavicular separations using the acromioclavicular-hook plate. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995;(314):134-42.
30Wellmann M, Zantop T, Petersen W. Minimally invasive coracoclavicular ligament augmentation with a flip button/polydioxanone repair for treatment of total acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Arthroscopy 2007;23:1132.e1-5.
31Thiel E, Mutnal A, Gilot GJ. Surgical outcome following arthroscopic fixation of acromioclavicular joint disruption with the tightrope device. Orthopedics 2011;34:267-74.
32Mazzocca AD, Santangelo SA, Johnson ST, Rios CG, Dumonski ML, Arciero RA, et al. A biomechanical evaluation of an anatomical coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2006;34:236-46.
33Gangary SK, Meena S. Arthroscopic stabilization of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation with tightrope AC system: A tale of failures. J Arthrosc Joint Surg 2016;3:13-6.
34Faggiani M, Vasario GP, Mattei L, Calò MJ, Castoldi F. Comparing mini-open and arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint repair: Functional results and return to sport. Musculoskelet Surg 2016;100:187-91.
35Wright J, Osarumwense D, Ismail F, Umebuani Y, Orakwe S. Stabilisation for the disrupted acromioclavicular joint using a braided polyester prosthetic ligament. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2015;23:223-8.