Acromioclavicular Joint Injury
- Author: Brett D Owens, MD; Chief Editor: Craig C Young, MD more...
Injuries in and around the shoulder, including acromioclavicular joint injuries, occur most commonly in active or athletic young adults. However, pediatric acromioclavicular injuries have also increased owing to the rising popularity of dangerous summer and winter sporting activities. Proper knowledge of the different problems and treatment options for shoulder disorders is necessary to help patients return to their preinjury state.
Acromioclavicular joint injuries are often seen after bicycle wrecks, contact sports, and car accidents. The acromioclavicular joint is located at the top of the shoulder where the acromion process and the clavicle meet to form a joint (see the following image). Several ligaments surround this joint, and depending on the severity of the injury, a person may tear one or all of the ligaments. Torn ligaments lead to acromioclavicular joint sprains and separations.
The distal clavicle and acromion process can also be fractured. Injury to the acromioclavicular joint may injure the cartilage within the joint and can later cause arthritis of the acromioclavicular joint.
Treatment of acromioclavicular separations has been a subject of debate. In general, types I and II injuries are treated nonoperatively in the acute setting, and types IV, V, and VI injuries generally require surgical repair. However, reaching a consensus regarding the optimal management of acute type III injuries has been difficult (see Treatment).
The acromioclavicular joint is made up of 2 bones (the clavicle and the acromion), 4 ligaments, and a meniscus inside the joint. The normal width of the acromioclavicular joint is 1-3 mm in younger individuals; it narrows to 0.5 mm or less in individuals older than 60 years.
The acromioclavicular joint is a diarthrodial articulation with an interposed fibrocartilaginous meniscal disk that links the hyaline cartilage articular surfaces of the acromial process and the clavicle. The joint is horizontally and vertically stabilized in anterior and posterior translation by a combination of dynamic muscular and static ligamentous structures, which allow a normal anatomic range of motion. Because of the transverse orientation of the articulation, direct downward forces may result in shear stresses that cause disruption of these stabilizing structures and create displacement beyond the normal limits. This is evidenced by abnormal positioning of the clavicle relative to the acromion, usually in the superior direction.
The acromioclavicular capsular ligaments provide most of the joint stability in the anteroposterior (AP) direction.
The 2 coracoclavicular ligaments (the conoid and the trapezoid ligaments) are found medial to the acromioclavicular joint and attach from the coracoid process on the scapula to the inferior surface of the distal clavicle. These ligaments provide vertical (superior-inferior) stability to the joint (see the following image).[2, 3] Compression of the joint is restrained mainly by the trapezoid ligament. The deltoid and trapezius muscles are especially important in providing dynamic stabilization when these ligamentous structures are damaged.
Torn acromioclavicular joint ligaments and/or torn coracoclavicular ligaments are seen in acromioclavicular joint sprains. The meniscus that lies in the joint may also be injured during sprains or fractures around the acromioclavicular joint.
The coracoacromial ligament runs from the superior surface of the coracoid process to the inferior surface of the acromial process in a nearly horizontal direction. Although it is not an acromioclavicular joint–stabilizing structure, during operative repair of type III acromioclavicular injuries, the coracoacromial ligament may be resected from its acromial insertion and used to reconstruct the torn coracoclavicular ligament. (See Pathophysiology [intratopic link] for the classification of acromioclavicular injuries.)
The superior shoulder suspensory complex (SSSC) is a bony and soft-tissue ring composed of the glenoid process, the coracoid process, the coracoclavicular ligament, the distal clavicle, the acromioclavicular joint, and the acromial process at the end of a superior bony strut (the midshaft clavicle) and an inferior bony strut (the junction of the lateral scapular body and the medial glenoid neck).
Type III, IV, V, and VI acromioclavicular separations are double disruptions of the SSSC characterized by disruptions of both the coracoclavicular and acromioclavicular ligaments. As a result, these constitute unstable injuries that must be accounted for or that require surgical reduction and stabilization.
Multiple indirect forces can result in an acromioclavicular joint injury. The most common mechanism for an acromioclavicular joint injury is a fall directly onto the acromion, with the arm adducted up against the body. When a person falls onto their shoulder, the force pushes the tip of the shoulder down. The clavicle is usually kept in its anatomic position, whereas the shoulder is driven down, which injures the different ligaments or causes a fracture. A fall onto an outstretched hand (FOOSH injury) and a downward force on the upper extremity have also been implicated in acromioclavicular joint injuries.[1, 5, 2]
The severity of an acromioclavicular separation is dependent upon the degree of ligamentous injury. When the ligaments are injured they are either sprained or, in more severe cases, torn. Severe forces resulting from significant falls are often associated with type III-VI injuries.
Classification of adult acromioclavicular joint injuries
Acromioclavicular joint sprains have been classified according to the severity of injury to the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments, the acromioclavicular joint capsule, and the supporting muscles of the shoulder (trapezius and deltoid) that attach to the clavicle.
An acromioclavicular joint sprain is more common than a fracture after an injury. However, fractures of the distal clavicle and the acromion process may occur, so the healthcare provider must be aware of such injuries and ready to diagnose and treat them as well (see Clavicular Injuries).
Allman and Tossy initially proposed a 3-grade classification[7, 8] that Rockwood expanded to 6 types of injury (see the following images).[9, 1] Type I and II injuries are the same in both classification schemes, with type III injuries in the Tossy classification subdivided into grades III, IV, V, and VI in the Rockwood classification. Type I-III acromioclavicular injuries are the most common injuries.
The Rockwood classification of acromioclavicular injuries in adults is as follows[9, 1, 7, 8] :
Type I: Minor sprain of the acromioclavicular ligament, intact joint capsule, intact coracoclavicular ligament, intact deltoid and trapezius
Type II: Rupture of the acromioclavicular ligament and joint capsule, sprain of the coracoclavicular ligament but intact coracoclavicular interspace, minimal detachment of the deltoid and trapezius
Type III: Rupture of the acromioclavicular ligament, joint capsule, and coracoclavicular ligament; elevated clavicle (≤100% displacement); detachment of the deltoid and trapezius
Type IV: Rupture of the acromioclavicular ligament, joint capsule, and coracoclavicular ligament; posteriorly displaced clavicle into the trapezius; detachment of the deltoid and trapezius
Type V: Rupture of the acromioclavicular ligament, joint capsule, and coracoclavicular ligament; elevated clavicle (>100% displacement); detachment of the deltoid and trapezius
Type VI (rare): Rupture of acromioclavicular ligament, joint capsule, and coracoclavicular ligament; the clavicle is displaced behind the tendons of the biceps and coracobrachialis
In a type I sprain, a mild force applied to the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments does not tear them.[7, 8, 10] The injury simply results in a sprain, which hurts, but the shoulder does not show any gross evidence of an acromioclavicular joint dislocation.
Type II sprains are seen when a heavier force is applied to the shoulder, disrupting the acromioclavicular ligaments but leaving the sprained coracoclavicular ligaments intact.[7, 8, 10] When these injuries occur, the lateral clavicle becomes a little more prominent.
As noted earlier, type III, IV, V, and VI acromioclavicular separations are double disruptions of the superior shoulder suspensory complex (SSSC).[7, 8, 10]
In type III sprains, the force applied to the shoulder completely disrupts the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments, leading to complete separation of the clavicle and obvious changes in appearance. The lateral clavicle is very prominent.
Type IV injuries are defined by posterior displacement of the clavicle relative to the acromion with buttonholing through the trapezius muscle.
In type V injuries, the clavicle is widely displaced superiorly relative to the acromion as a result of disruption of muscle attachments.
The rare type VI injuries are characterized by inferior displacement of the distal clavicle below the acromial process or the coracoid process.
Pediatric acromioclavicular injuries
Acromioclavicular joint injuries in children are relatively uncommon, and they differ anatomically from such injuries in adults. The immature clavicle is encased in a periosteal tube. The coracoclavicular ligament is within this tissue, whereas the acromioclavicular ligament is exterior to it. This anatomic relationship explains why the acromioclavicular ligament is frequently injured with direct trauma, whereas the coracoclavicular ligament remains intact.
The pediatric Rockwood classification of acromioclavicular injuries is as follows :
Type I: Stable clavicle; radiographically normal joint
Type II: Partial tear of the periosteal tube, allowing for some mobility of the distal clavicle; disrupted acromioclavicular ligament
Types III-VI: Larger tear through the periosteal tube, allowing for greater clavicle mobility and gross instability with clavicle positioning; the coracoclavicular ligament remains attached to the clavicle periosteal tube
When evaluating a pediatric radiograph, remember that incomplete closure of or failure of an ossification center may appear to be a fracture.
The most common mechanism of injury to the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments is a direct force applied to the superior aspect of the acromion, usually from a fall with the arm in an adducted position. This impact drives the acromion inferiorly, spraining the intra-articular acromioclavicular ligaments. If the force is great enough, the extra-articular coracoclavicular ligament may also be damaged.
Less commonly, an indirect force may be transmitted up the arm as a result of a fall on an outstretched hand (FOOSH injury). The force continues through the humeral head to the acromial process, displacing it superiorly and stressing the acromioclavicular ligaments. The coracoacromial ligaments are not injured with this type of mechanism.
Other injuries, depending on the force of injury, may include tears of the deltoid and trapezius attachments at the clavicle and fractures of the acromion, clavicle, and coracoid (or of their cartilaginous attachments).
United States statistics
The true incidence of acromioclavicular injury is not known, as many affected individuals do not seek treatment. Approximately 12% of all dislocations involving the shoulder affect the acromioclavicular joint.
Athletes participating in contact sports (eg, football, rugby, hockey, martial arts) are at increased risk of acromioclavicular joint injuries,[12, 13] and injuries to the acromioclavicular joint are the most common reason that athletes seek medical attention following an acute shoulder injury (glenohumeral dislocations are the second most common injuries seen) (see Shoulder Dislocation). Patients involved in motor vehicle collisions with direct trauma to the apex of the shoulder are also at risk for such injuries.
Males are more commonly affected than females, with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 5:1, and younger individuals (< 35 y) sustain more acromioclavicular injuries, primarily due their greater participation in high-risk activities. Men in their second through fourth decades of life have the greatest frequency of acromioclavicular joint injuries, which are most often incomplete tears of the ligaments.
No difference in injury patterns exists among various racial or ethnic backgrounds.
Significant morbidity is negligible with type I and II acromioclavicular injuries.
For type I injuries, the prognosis following nonoperative care is excellent. Affected patients may usually return to sports in 1-2 weeks. Some studies have shown mild symptoms occurring in approximately 30% of heavy laborers, but significant symptoms are much less common.[14, 15]
Following nonoperative management of type II injuries, patients in most long-term studies have shown good-to-excellent outcomes as well. These patients usually require a longer period of recovery that those with type I injuries, usually returning to sports in 2-4 weeks.
However, a small portion of the population with type II injuries will report symptomatic acromioclavicular degenerative disease that necessitates surgery. Reports exist of patients with type II injuries who continue to experience some subjective loss of strength up to 3 years after injury. Although the literature does not contain studies investigating the natural history of acromioclavicular joint degenerative disease, some studies report that athletes with distal clavicle osteolysis often experience resolution of symptoms with avoidance of provocative activities.[16, 17]
Morbidity is highest with type III injuries, which may be due to the controversy surrounding management. However, those treated nonoperatively generally do quite well. There is a scarcity of literature regarding long-term follow-up after surgical repair of type III.
Types IV, V, and VI injuries generally do well with surgical repair. Published studies of patients undergoing both arthroscopic and open resection have reported good or excellent results in approximately 60-100% of cases of acromioclavicular joint injuries. A 2007 prospective comparison of open versus arthroscopic treatment and retrospective studies have shown similar long-term results. Patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment are likely to return to activity more quickly than other patients.[18, 19]
Mortality is not commonly associated with acromioclavicular injuries.
Just like any other joint in the body, once the acromioclavicular joint has been injured, it has a tendency for arthritis and pain, with pain in the joint being the most common problem after these injuries. In type III sprains, the most common setback is also instability in the clavicle from the torn ligaments.
Acromioclavicular separations may be accompanied by fractures and other disruptions, as well as by injuries to nonorthopedic systems. Most frequent are midclavicular, distal clavicular, acromial, and coracoid fractures.[20, 21]
Degenerative changes involving the acromioclavicular joint are common late complications. Symptomatic traumatic arthritis may develop following nonoperative management of type I or II injuries. Surgery is often indicated to alleviate symptoms. However, symptomatic acromioclavicular joint arthritis may also develop in patients who undergo surgical management acutely.
Impingement symptoms, muscle-fatigue discomfort, and/or neurovascular symptomatology may occur in patients treated nonoperatively for type III separations and may require a surgical reconstruction.
Postoperative complications may also arise. The most common complication is mild residual instability after ligament reconstruction. This complication was more common when screws, sutures, suture tape, and Kirschner wires (K-wires) were being used to repair coracoclavicular ligament tears. Migration may also occur if pins or wires are used for fixation. Other postprocedure complications include osteomyelitis, soft-tissue ossification, and failure of fixation with recurrent deformity. Infections (eg, wound infection) may also occur, but these are rare, occurring less than 1% of the time.
When a patient is dealing with an arthritic acromioclavicular joint, the most common problem is inadequate resection of the clavicle during surgery. This causes continued acromioclavicular joint pain in these patients, but it is easily fixed with proper arthroscopic resection of the fragment.
Other complications from acromioclavicular joint injuries may include the following:
Decreased shoulder range of motion/upper extremity strength
Distal clavicle osteolysis
Rockwood CA Jr, Green DP, Bucholz RW, Heckman JD. Fractures in Adults. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
Shaffer BS. Painful conditions of the acromioclavicular joint. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1999 May-Jun. 7(3):176-88. [Medline].
Fukuda K, Craig EV, An KN, Cofield RH, Chao EY. Biomechanical study of the ligamentous system of the acromioclavicular joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Mar. 68(3):434-40. [Medline].
Goss TP. Double disruptions of the superior shoulder suspensory complex. J Orthop Trauma. 1993. 7(2):99-106. [Medline].
Macdonald PB, Lapointe P. Acromioclavicular and sternoclavicular joint injuries. Orthop Clin North Am. 2008 Oct. 39(4):535-45, viii. [Medline].
Pifer M, Ashfaq K, Maerz T, Jackson A, Baker K, Anderson K. Intra- and interdisciplinary agreement in the rating of acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Phys Sportsmed. 2013 Nov. 41(4):25-32. [Medline].
Allman FL Jr. Fractures and ligamentous injuries of the clavicle and its articulation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1967 Jun. 49(4):774-84. [Medline].
Tossy JD, Mead NC, Sigmond HM. Acromioclavicular separations: useful and practical classification for treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1963. 28:111-9. [Medline].
Injuries to the acromioclavicular joint. Rockwood CA, Green DP, eds. Fractures in Adults. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott; 1984. 860-91.
Melenevsky Y, Yablon CM, Ramappa A, Hochman MG. Clavicle and acromioclavicular joint injuries: a review of imaging, treatment, and complications. Skeletal Radiol. 2011 Jul. 40(7):831-42. [Medline].
Rockwood CA, Wilkins KE, King RE, eds. Fractures in Children. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publishers; 1984. Vol 3: 631.
Laprade RF, Surowiec RK, Sochanska AN, Hentkowski BS, Martin BM, Engebretsen L, et al. Epidemiology, identification, treatment and return to play of musculoskeletal-based ice hockey injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2014 Jan. 48(1):4-10. [Medline].
Lynch TS, Saltzman MD, Ghodasra JH, Bilimoria KY, Bowen MK, Nuber GW. Acromioclavicular joint injuries in the national football league: epidemiology and management. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Dec. 41(12):2904-8. [Medline].
Bergfeld JA, Andrish JT, Clancy WG. Evaluation of the acromioclavicular joint following first- and second-degree sprains. Am J Sports Med. 1978 Jul-Aug. 6(4):153-9. [Medline].
Cox JS. The fate of the acromioclavicular joint in athletic injuries. Am J Sports Med. 1981 Jan-Feb. 9(1):50-3. [Medline].
Slawski DP, Cahill BR. Atraumatic osteolysis of the distal clavicle. Results of open surgical excision. Am J Sports Med. 1994 Mar-Apr. 22(2):267-71. [Medline].
Cahill BR. Osteolysis of the distal part of the clavicle in male athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Sep. 64(7):1053-8. [Medline].
Freedman BA, Javernick MA, O'Brien FP, Ross AE, Doukas WC. Arthroscopic versus open distal clavicle excision: comparative results at six months and one year from a randomized, prospective clinical trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Jul-Aug. 16(4):413-8. [Medline].
Williams GR, Nguyen VD, Rockwood CA. Classification and radiographic analysis of acromioclavicular dislocations. Appl Radiol. Feb 1989. 29-34.
Tischer T, Salzmann GM, El-Azab H, Vogt S, Imhoff AB. Incidence of associated injuries with acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations types III through V. Am J Sports Med. 2009 Jan. 37(1):136-9. [Medline].
Pauly S, Gerhardt C, Haas NP, Scheibel M. Prevalence of concomitant intraarticular lesions in patients treated operatively for high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 May. 17(5):513-7. [Medline].
Hudson VJ. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of shoulder injuries in athletes. Clin Sports Med. 2010 Jan. 29(1):19-32, table of contents. [Medline].
Nemec U, Oberleitner G, Nemec SF, Gruber M, Weber M, Czerny C, et al. MRI versus radiography of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Oct. 197(4):968-73. [Medline].
Heers G, Hedtmann A. Correlation of ultrasonographic findings to Tossy's and Rockwood's classification of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005 Jun. 31(6):725-32. [Medline].
Alyas F, Curtis M, Speed C, Saifuddin A, Connell D. MR imaging appearances of acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Radiographics. 2008 Mar-Apr. 28(2):463-79; quiz 619. [Medline].
Wojtys EM, Nelson G. Conservative treatment of Grade III acromioclavicular dislocations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Jul. 112-9. [Medline].
Press J, Zuckerman JD, Gallagher M, Cuomo F. Treatment of grade III acromioclavicular separations. Operative versus nonoperative management. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1997. 56(2):77-83. [Medline].
Schlegel TF, Burks RT, Marcus RL, Dunn HK. A prospective evaluation of untreated acute grade III acromioclavicular separations. Am J Sports Med. 2001 Nov-Dec. 29(6):699-703. [Medline].
Leidel BA, Braunstein V, Kirchhoff C, Pilotto S, Mutschler W, Biberthaler P. Consistency of long-term outcome of acute Rockwood grade III acromioclavicular joint separations after K-wire transfixation. J Trauma. 2009 Jun. 66(6):1666-71. [Medline].
Leidel BA, Braunstein V, Pilotto S, Mutschler W, Kirchhoff C. Mid-term outcome comparing temporary K-wire fixation versus PDS augmentation of Rockwood grade III acromioclavicular joint separations. BMC Res Notes. 2009 May 9. 2:84. [Medline]. [Full Text].
DeBerardino TM, Pensak MJ, Ferreira J, Mazzocca AD. Arthroscopic stabilization of acromioclavicular joint dislocation using the AC graftrope system. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Mar. 19(2 Suppl):47-52. [Medline].
Gstettner C, Tauber M, Hitzl W, Resch H. Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: surgical versus conservative treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Mar-Apr. 17(2):220-5. [Medline].
Choi SW, Lee TJ, Moon KH, Cho KJ, Lee SY. Minimally invasive coracoclavicular stabilization with suture anchors for acute acromioclavicular dislocation. Am J Sports Med. 2008 May. 36(5):961-5. [Medline].
Rolf O, Hann von Weyhern A, Ewers A, Boehm TD, Gohlke F. Acromioclavicular dislocation Rockwood III-V: results of early versus delayed surgical treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008 Oct. 128(10):1153-7. [Medline].
Kumar S, Penematsa SR, Selvan T. Surgical reconstruction for chronic painful acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007 Aug. 127(6):481-4. [Medline].
Ammon JT, Voor MJ, Tillett ED. A biomechanical comparison of Bosworth and poly-L lactic acid bioabsorbable screws for treatment of acromioclavicular separations. Arthroscopy. 2005 Dec. 21(12):1443-6. [Medline].
Kim SH, Lee YH, Shin SH, Lee YH, Baek GH. Outcome of conjoined tendon and coracoacromial ligament transfer for the treatment of chronic type V acromioclavicular joint separation. Injury. 2012 Feb. 43(2):213-8. [Medline].
Smith TO, Chester R, Pearse EO, Hing CB. Operative versus non-operative management following Rockwood grade III acromioclavicular separation: a meta-analysis of the current evidence base. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011 Mar. 12(1):19-27. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Bosworth BM. Acromioclavicular separation: New method of repair. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1941. 73:866-871.
Weaver JK, Dunn HK. Treatment of acromioclavicular injuries, especially complete acromioclavicular separation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972 Sep. 54(6):1187-94. [Medline].
Bezer M, Saygi B, Aydin N, Kucukdurmaz F, Ekinci G, Guven O. Quantification of acromioclavicular reduction parameters after the Weaver-Dunn procedure. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Aug. 129(8):1017-24. [Medline].
Abat F, Sarasquete J, Natera LG, Calvo Á, Pérez-España M, Zurita N, et al. Biomechanical analysis of acromioclavicular joint dislocation repair using coracoclavicular suspension devices in two different configurations. J Orthop Traumatol. 2015 Mar 5. [Medline].
Tauber M. Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: current concepts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013 Jul. 133(7):985-95. [Medline].
Trainer G, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD. Practical management of grade III acromioclavicular separations. Clin J Sport Med. 2008 Mar. 18(2):162-6. [Medline].
Nissen CW, Chatterjee A. Type III acromioclavicular separation: results of a recent survey on its management. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2007 Feb. 36(2):89-93. [Medline].
Phillips AM, Smart C, Groom AF. Acromioclavicular dislocation. Conservative or surgical therapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Aug. 10-7. [Medline].
Lizaur A, Sanz-Reig J, Gonzalez-Parreño S. Long-term results of the surgical treatment of type III acromioclavicular dislocations: an update of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Aug. 93(8):1088-92. [Medline].
Stine IA, Vangsness CT Jr. Analysis of the capsule and ligament insertions about the acromioclavicular joint: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 2009 Sep. 25(9):968-74. [Medline].
Flatow EL, Duralde XA, Nicholson GP, Pollock RG, Bigliani LU. Arthroscopic resection of the distal clavicle with a superior approach. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995 Jan-Feb. 4(1 Pt 1):41-50. [Medline].
Phillips AM, Smart C, Groom AF. Acromioclavicular dislocation. Conservative or surgical therapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Aug. 10-7. [Medline].