Subsidence following surgical stabilization of acromioclavicular joint injuries: Should we be concerned?

Table 3 Loss of reduction rates associated with arthroscopic and arthroscopic-assisted acromioclavicular joint reconstruction techniques

Ref.	Study design	n	Rockwood type	Technique	Mean follow-up	LOR/re-dislocation
Çarkçı et al[77], 2020	Retrospective	36	Acute (III and V)	Arthroscopic double-button	31.4 months	25%
Lee et al[79], 2017	Retrospective	47	Acute (III-V)	Arthroscopic assisted single button	24 months	38.3%
Spoliti et al[83], 2014	Prospective	19	Acute (III-V)	Arthroscopic tight-rope (button + fiber wire)	12 months	15.8%
Tauber et al[42], 2016	Retrospective	26 (12 vs 14)	Chronic (III-V)	Arthroscopic TB vs SB CC reconstruction	29 months	TB: 8% vs SB: 21% recurrence
Nordin et al[81], 2015	Prospective	8	Chronic (III-V)	Arthroscopic assisted Graft-rope	12 months	50% early LOR
Murena et al[80], 2009	Prospective	16	Acute (III-V)	Arthroscopic double-button	31 months	25% partial LOR
Chernchujit et al[84], 2006	Retrospective	13	Acute (IV-V)	Arthroscopic reconstruction with suture anchors + titanium plate	18 months	15% subluxation; 8% re-dislocation

LOR: Loss of reduction; TB: Triple-bundle; SB: Single-bundle; CC: Coracoclavicular.