BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Minireviews
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Orthop. Jun 18, 2026; 17(6): 117244
Published online Jun 18, 2026. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v17.i6.117244
Table 1 Incidence of loss of reduction after acromioclavicular joint pinning, coracoclavicular screw fixation, hook plate, and tension band wiring in acute acromioclavicular joint disruptions
Ref.
Study design
n
Rockwood type
Technique
Mean follow-up
LOR/re-dislocation
Horst et al[53], 2013Retrospective11Acute (III)ACJ pinning6-21 weeks9.1% LOR
Leidel et al[54], 2009Retrospective70Acute (III)ACJ pinning1-10 years11% re-dislocation, 4% migration
Cetinkaya et al[56], 2017Retrospective32 (16 vs 16)Acute (III)Bosworth screw vs modified Phemister93-96 monthsBosworth: 2/16; Phemister: 1/16
Darabos et al[57], 2015RCT68 (34 vs 34)Acute (III)Bosworth screw vs AC tight-rope6 monthsBosworth: 11.8%; tight-rope: 5.9%
Bektaşer et al[55], 2004Prospective34Acute (III)Bosworth screw35 months8.8%
El-Shennawy et al[58], 2021Retrospective30Acute (III-V)TBW1 year6.8% partial LOR
Ozan et al[60], 2020Retrospective24Acute (III)TBW3.5 years45.8% residual subluxation
Lateur et al[59], 2016Retrospective25Acute (IV, V)TBW12 years2% LOR
Wang et al[65], 2024Retrospective58 (35 vs 23)Acute (III, V)Hook plate vs tight-rope15.4 monthsHook plate: 2.9%; tight-rope: 4.3%
Ko et al[62], 2023Prospective61 (36 vs 25)Acute (III-V)Hook plate vs tight-rope7 yearsHook plate: 16.7%; tight-rope: 28%
Amr[66], 2021Prospective64 (32 vs 32)Acute (III-VI)Hook plate vs reconstruction64 monthsHook plate: 21.8%; reconstruction: 6.2% subluxation
Nie and Lan[63], 2021Retrospective112 (84 vs 28)Acute (III-V)Hook plate vs tight-rope34 monthsHook plate: 11.9%; tight-rope: 7.1%
Shen et al[64], 2021Retrospective35 (19 vs 16)Acute (III-V)Hook plate vs tight-rope27-30 monthsHook plate: 0%; tight-rope: 6.3%
Cai et al[61], 2018Prospective69 (39 vs 30)Acute (III)Hook plate vs tight-rope12 monthsHook plate: 0%; tight-rope: 10%


Write to the Help Desk