Abstract
Abstract
Objective.
Initially performed as open surgery, arthroscopic applications of distal clavicle excision (DCE) have gained prevalence in recent years. Literature reviews about the long-term results give no clear indication that one method is superior to the other. This study aims to compare the follow-up results of patients treated with arthroscopic and open DCE for more than five years and to detect the superiority of each method.
Material and Method.
The study involved 328 patients treated with DCE between February 2008 and April 2017. One hundred and fourteen patients (66 male and 48 female; 81 arthroscopic and 33 open surgery), who had their records available and underwent no other surgery than DCE, were included in the study. The Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to assess post-DCE shoulder functions and pain, respectively. Within the study's scope, surgery duration, excision extent, complications (frozen shoulder, hematoma, surgical site infection, and instability), and revisions were compared.
Results.
In the >5-year follow-up process, no statistically significant difference was observed between pre-DCE DASH and VAS values or between post-DCE DASH and VAS values of the two groups, one involving 32 patients who underwent open surgery and the other involving 82 patients treated with arthroscopic surgery. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-DCE DASH and VAS scores of both groups, and it was observed that both surgical methods were effective. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding the surgery duration. Arthroscopic DCE was measured to be 4.70 mm on average, while the average measure for open surgery was 5.53 mm, which indicated a statistically significant difference between the two groups. However, no significant association was observed between the excision extent and the DASH and VAS scores. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between complication and revision rates.
Conclusion.
In the >5-year follow-up of patients who underwent arthroscopic or open DCE due to their acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis, which could not be treated with conservative treatment, no statistically significant difference was observed in the two groups' post-DCE DASH scores, VAS scores, complication rates, and revision rates. There was, however, a statistically significant difference between both groups' pre- and post-DCE VAS and DASH scores, and both methods were effective.

Key words: Acromioclavicular, Distal Clavicle Excision, Arthroscopic, Open