Continuing acromioclavicular joint pain after excision arthroplasty: is further surgery effective?
AP Dekker,corresponding author Z Borton, M Espag, T Cresswell, AA Tambe, and DI ClarkShoulder
Background
Little published evidence exists on the incidence of continuing acromioclavicular joint pain with no published outcomes for revision surgery. This study aimed to establish the incidence and outcomes of revision acromioclavicular joint excision surgery.
Materials and methods
A consecutive retrospective cohort of patients undergoing revision arthroscopic or open acromioclavicular joint excision was identified. Patients were identified from a prospectively collected database. Inclusion criteria were revision acromioclavicular joint excisions over a 14-year period between 2001 and 2015. Exclusion criteria were previous surgery for acromioclavicular joint instability or shoulder arthroplasty. Outcome measures were Oxford Shoulder scores and a satisfaction survey.
Results
Forty-three consecutive cases of revision acromioclavicular joint excision over 14 years (37 after arthroscopic excision with subacromial decompression, 5 after arthroscopic excision with rotator cuff repair, 1 after open excision). Continuing acromioclavicular joint pain was associated with incomplete resection from arthroscopic surgery, which was the primary indication for revision surgery. Revision occurred a mean 14.2 months after primary surgery (standard deviation 7.6 months). Mean Oxford Shoulder score was preoperatively 18 (standard deviation 8.1) and 23.4 (standard deviation 11.1) after primary surgery, which did not reach significance until after revision surgery with a mean 31.7 (standard deviation 13.6; P = 0.021). Median follow up was 15 months (interquartile range 4–31 months). A survey at a mean of 6 years (standard deviation 2.3) post-revision surgery found that 65% of patients felt improved, 77% would have their surgery again and 69% of patients felt satisfied. The incidence of postoperative frozen shoulder was 14.3%.
Conclusion
Functional outcomes after revision surgery showed improvement from scores taken before primary surgery; however, long-term satisfaction rates were relatively low.
Link to article