| Title |
Treatment of Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint dislocation using autogenous semitendinosus tendon graft and endobutton technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s81829 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gang Ye, Chao-An Peng, Hua-Bin Sun, Jing Xiao, Kang Zhu |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic effect of autogenous semitendinosus graft and endobutton technique, and compare with hook plate in treatment of Rockwood type III acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocation. From April 2012 to April 2013, we treated 46 patients with Rockwood type III AC joint dislocation. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group A was treated using a hook plate and Group B with autogenous semitendinosus graft and endobutton technique. All participants were followed up for 12 months. Radiographic examinations were performed every 2 months postoperatively, and clinical evaluation was performed using the Constant-Murley score at the last follow-up. Results indicated that patients in Group B showed higher mean scores (90.3±5.4) than Group A (80.4±11.5) in terms of Constant-Murley score (P=0.001). Group B patients scored higher in terms of pain (P=0.002), activities (P=0.02), range of motion (P<0.001), and strength (P=0.004). In Group A, moderate pain was reported by 2 (8.7%) and mild pain by 8 (34.8%) patients. Mild pain was reported by 1 (4.3%) patient in Group B. All patients in Group B maintained complete reduction, while 2 (8.7%) patients in Group A experienced partial reduction loss. Two patients (8.7%) encountered acromial osteolysis on latest radiographs, with moderate shoulder pain and limited range of motion. Autogenous semitendinosus graft and endobutton technique showed better results compared with the hook plate method and exhibited advantages of fewer complications such as permanent pain and acromial osteolysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2016.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,020
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,488
of 399,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#48
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.