Acromioclavicular Joint Injury Treatment & Management
- Author: Brett D Owens, MD; Chief Editor: Craig C Young, MD more...
Treatment of acromioclavicular separations has been a subject of debate. Type I and II injuries are generally treated nonoperatively in the acute setting, and types IV-VI injuries generally require surgical repair. However, reaching a consensus regarding the optimal management of acute type III injuries has been difficult, despite randomized trials that indicate success with nonoperative treatment in most cases.[26, 27, 28]
Conservative versus surgical management
For types I-III injuries in pediatric patients, closed reduction can be effective, although surgical intervention for selected cases may be indicated to achieve better functional results. As a result, surgical correction should at least be considered in younger, more active patients or younger patients who are unsure of their future careers, as well as for heavy laborers and soldiers.[29, 1, 30]
In most adult patients with type III injuries, nonoperative care achieves an excellent functional outcome. However, many surgeons believe that this degree of displacement leads to muscle-fatigue discomfort and difficulty manipulating heavy loads.
Type I-III injuries that are managed conservatively may result in persistent shoulder pain, dysfunction, or both. Type I and II separations may progress to develop symptomatic degenerative disease. Type III separations may result in impingement symptoms, muscle-fatigue discomfort, and/or neurovascular symptomatology. Late surgical management may be required.
Fractures in and around the acromioclavicular joint are mostly treated conservatively in a sling. The few times surgery needs to be considered are when there is a moderate amount of displacement of the fracture fragments. Surgery is indicated for open fractures, neurovascular injury, and for those cases in which the skin is compromised and may rupture from the pressure of the prominent bone.
Injuries that lead to arthritis of the acromioclavicular joint are also first treated with conservative measures. Anti-inflammatory medication and intra-articular steroid injections work well for degenerative changes in the acromioclavicular joint. In injuries that have failed conservative therapy, excision of the distal clavicle can be performed with a minimally invasive arthroscopic procedure.
In general, surgical management should be offered acutely only to those who require high-level upper extremity function and late to those with significant shoulder pain and/or dysfunction refractory to nonoperative treatment. Given the proper choice of treatment, outcomes should be acceptable in more than 90% of patients.
The current criterion standard is to reconstruct the torn coracoclavicular ligaments with either local tissue or an allograft. However, many procedures have been described for the repair of acute and chronic type III-VI injuries.[32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38] These all include open reduction and stabilization of the dislocation with repair of the usually torn deltotrapezial fascia and debridement of the acromioclavicular articulation.
Bosworth described the use of a screw placed from the clavicle into the coracoid base to stabilize the articulation, whereas others have used bioabsorbable or nonbioabsorbable devices passed through a drill hole in the clavicle and around the coracoid base. Pins placed through the acromion, across the acromioclavicular joint, and down the clavicle have also been used. The acromioclavicular ligaments and coracoclavicular ligament are repaired, if possible. Many authors have also advocated performing a distal clavicle excision at the time of the operative repair, especially in late reconstructive procedures.[32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38]
Weaver and Dunn described a procedure designed to reconstruct the coracoclavicular ligament by excising the distal end of the clavicle and transferring the acromial attachment of the coracoacromial ligament to the resection site.[40, 41]
A study aimed to evaluate the vertical biomechanical behavior of two techniques for the anatomic repair of coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments after an acromioclavicular (AC) injury. The study concluded that anatomic repair of coracoclavicular ligaments with a double system (double tunnel in the clavicle and in the coracoid) permits vertical translation that is more like that of the acromioclavicular joint. Acromioclavicular repair in a "V" configuration does not seem to be biomechanically sufficient.
The presence of infection is a contraindication to repair of an acromioclavicular separation. Additionally, an open wound with compromised soft tissues may necessitate delay of the surgery until the risk of infection is minimized by irrigation and antibiotic prophylaxis. Other considerations include the patient's overall health and ability to undergo anesthesia.
Prehospital and Emergency Department Care
Acutely, acromioclavicular separations are generally quite painful. Prehospital providers should splint suspected acromioclavicular injuries in a position of comfort. Always check the neurovascular status of the injured extremity after application of a splint. If indicated, assess and immobilize the spine.
Acromioclavicular injuries requiring open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) should be repaired within 2 weeks of the time of injury. Reduction of acromioclavicular injuries is rarely attempted in the emergency department. Such maneuvers should only be performed in cooperation with an orthopedic surgeon. Unless other injuries are sustained, these patients do not require admission on the day of injury.
Orthopedic surgeons should also be consulted in pediatric cases and in adults with type III-VI acromioclavicular joint injuries.
Management of Type I and II Injuries
Acromioclavicular joint sprains do well with conservative management. Type I and type II injuries are generally accepted to be treated nonoperatively in the acute setting. A brief course of narcotics followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in combination with locally applied ice and activity modification is usually sufficient for type I and II injuries.
However, these injuries may need further care if the acromioclavicular joint becomes arthritic from the injury (see below).
Type I injuries involve minimal disruption of the acromioclavicular joint and are intrinsically stable. Treatment involves application of a sling for comfort and activity modification, ice, and analgesic agents until the symptoms subside and the range of motion is reasonably comfortable.
Athletes can usually return to sports in 1-2 weeks. For patients whose symptoms do not improve within this time frame, intra-articular steroid injections may be indicated. Patients with persistent pain for extended amounts of time may be candidates for a distal clavicle excision.
In patients with type II injuries, the acromioclavicular ligament is completely torn. For the most part, these patients receive the same treatment as those with type I injuries, in combination with a rehabilitation program that emphasizes maintaining or regaining range of motion. However, patients with type II injuries take longer to improve than those with type I injuries, because the acromioclavicular ligaments are disrupted. With significant instability, strap immobilization for 2-4 weeks and no heavy lifting for 6-12weeks are appropriate to allow healing and prevent progression to a type III injury.[44, 32]
A Kenny-Howard shoulder harness may be used for strap immobilization, although this device is frequently uncomfortable for the patient and may not change the outcome.
Late management of type II injuries may require intra-articular steroids or surgery. Distal clavicle excision has been noted to produce inferior results compared with the same surgery in patients with type I injury due to increased instability of the acromioclavicular joint.
When conservative measures fail to manage symptomatic acromioclavicular joint arthrosis after type I and type II injuries, a distal clavicle resection provides predictable relief. This can be performed in both an open manner and an arthroscopic manner.
The amount of bone that should be resected has been debated; original descriptions suggested 1-2 cm, and the arthroscopic advocates suggest less (5-7 mm). In general, adequate bone should be resected to prevent acromioclavicular contact during shoulder range of motion yet avoid violating the coracoclavicular ligament.
Management of Type III-VI Injuries
Patients with type III acromioclavicular injuries have complete tearing of both the coracoclavicular and acromioclavicular ligaments. This type of injury results in superior displacement and greater instability of the clavicle.
As noted earlier, there is controversy regarding the optimal management of type III injuries. Most studies suggest that conservative therapy produces better functional results than operative repair.[26, 27, 28] If nonoperative management is chosen after a type III separation, the treatment is similar to that for a type II injury.
However, comparison trials between operative and nonoperative management have suffered from an insufficient numbers of patients, a retrospective design in most cases, heterogeneous patient groups, or a lack of objective evaluation in the follow-up period. Furthermore, a variety of different surgical techniques have been developed, making comparison between conservative management and general operative management difficult.
Nissen and Chatterjee published a survey of members of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and accredited residency directors from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in which they found conservative therapy is still the recommended first line of care for type III injuries (>90%). An earlier meta-analysis of all studies looking at outcomes of acromioclavicular separations—consisting of 24 papers, 5 of which directly compared surgical and nonsurgical management of type III acromioclavicular injuries—appeared to conclude that nonsurgical intervention yielded improved strength, range of motion, and fewer complications than operative intervention.
Surgical intervention may be an option in type III acromioclavicular joint sprains, but only after the patient's condition has failed a good trial of conservative treatment with physical therapy and medication. Some authorities indicate that individuals in certain active occupations, such as baseball pitchers, manual laborers, and soldiers, may disproportionately benefit from operative intervention.[29, 1, 30] The procedure for these patients is reconstruction of the torn coracoclavicular ligaments with either local tissue or an allograft.
In the past, surgeons have used screws, sutures, suture tape, synthetic grafts, and Kirschner (K)-wires to try to repair the type III defect. These have all fallen out of favor, and the current criterion standard is to reconstruct the torn ligaments as mentioned above.
Leidel et al studied the operative outcome of acute grade III acromioclavicular joint separations after temporary K-wire transfixation in 70 patients and found no significant differences among patients divided into 3 groups: 1-2 years post procedure; 3-5 years post procedure; and 6-10 years post procedure. All 3 treatment groups had good functional results and consistent outcome over the long term.
In a cadaver study that assessed the capsular and ligamentous insertions around the acromioclavicular joint in 28 cadaveric shoulders to determine the amount of bone that can be removed without destabilizing the joint, Stine and Vangsness indicated that an acromioclavicular joint resection (5-7 mm) consisting of 2-3 mm from the medial acromion and 3-4 mm from the distal clavicle would not remove the acromioclavicular capsular insertions. The investigators also noted that medial resections greater than 15 mm would begin to take down the trapezoid ligament and suggested that arthroscopic bone resection be directed into the acromioclavicular joint at approximately 50° in the axial plane and 12° in the coronal plane for safe symmetric resection.
Type IV-VI Injuries
Type IV, V, and VI injuries in adults and pediatric patients generally require surgical repair. Because the clavicle is so far displaced from the acromial process in the posterior, superior, or inferior direction, respectively, conservative management is inadequate. The patient continues to experience pain and dysfunction if the articulation is not reduced and stabilized.
In patients with a type IV injury, the deltotrapezial fascia is disrupted in addition to complete tears of the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments. This injury complex allows posterior displacement of the clavicle into the trapezius and requires reduction, usually operative.
In theory, a closed reduction could be possible to convert the injury into a type III acromioclavicular injury, which could then be managed conservatively. Barring this possibility, surgery with an open reduction and internal fixation is necessary (ORIF).
Type V and VI injuries
Type V and VI acromioclavicular injuries are the most severe and will universally require ORIF. Acromioclavicular joint injection may be considered in the patient with recurrent visits to the emergency department for acromioclavicular pain. However, this is not recommended in the acute setting, as any fluid injected may complicate magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the joint.
Acromioclavicular joint injuries are painful, and the patient often lacks full range of motion after the injury. Physical therapy plays a role in the treatment of these patients. Some clinicians routinely start therapy within the first couple of weeks in acromioclavicular joint sprains.
For fractures of the acromioclavicular joint, wait until evidence of healing is apparent either clinically or radiographically before starting formal therapy. Therapy for degenerative joint disease of the acromioclavicular joint has not been proven to be successful.
Some clinicians have strict return-to-sports criteria that they address with patients who have acromioclavicular joint injuries and with physical therapists. These criteria may include the following:
No swelling/pain with functional activity
Isokinetic strength that is 80% of the opposite rotator cuff
Full active and passive range of motion
Stable scapula through full range of motion, with a normal scapulohumeral rhythm
Pain-free activities of daily living (ADLs)
Postoperative follow-up is important; this is mandatory for type III-VI injuries and recommended in all pediatric injuries. Patients are generally seen at 2-week intervals to monitor and update their rehabilitation program.
Patients undergoing reconstructive procedures remain in a sling for 2 weeks. Thereafter, a progressive, passive, range-of-motion program is begun. The patient's affected arm remains in the sling between sessions. At 6 weeks, healing is sufficient to allow patients to discontinue protection and to encourage progressive functional use.
Physiotherapy continues until the patient’s range of motion and strength are maximized. Heavy physical use of the shoulder is prohibited for an additional 6 weeks. Patients undergoing a distal clavicle resection are simply protected in a sling for 2 weeks to allow soft-tissue healing to occur.
If a coracoclavicular screw or a trans-acromioclavicular joint pin is used for stabilization, the device is removed 6 weeks postoperatively.
Prevention of significant acromioclavicular joint degenerative pathology generally consists of early diagnosis of the problem and avoidance of causative maneuvers, if possible. Football shoulder pads may decrease the extent of an injury, but they by no means prevent acromioclavicular injuries.
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].