General results
A total of 305 cases were included in follow-up and 27 cases were lost. The overall follow-up rate was 91.1%. Group A included a total of 88 cases with an average age of 41.534±10.340 years, 47 cases were males and 41 cases were females. There were 10 cases lost to follow-up. According to Rockwood classification, 73 cases belonged to Rockwood III, 2 cases were included in Rockwood IV and Rockwood V was in 13 cases. According to the type of injury, there were 24 cases of Car accident injury, 19 cases of Falling injury, 41 cases of Fell and hurt and 4 cases of other injuries. The ratio of the left and right shoulders was 33/55. A total of 109 cases were in Group B with an average age of 42.440±10.263 years, 60 cases were males and 49 cases were females. 9 cases lost follow-up. According to Rockwood classification, 93 cases belonged to Rockwood III, 5 cases were included in Rockwood IV and Rockwood V was in 11 cases. According to the type of injury, there were 24 cases of Car accident injury, 22 cases of Falling injury, 56 cases of Fell and hurt and 7 cases of other injuries. The ratio of the left and right shoulders was 47/62. 77 cases were included in group C with an average age of 43.389±9.976 years, 47 cases were males and 30 cases were females. 8 cases lost follow-up. According to Rockwood classification, 74 cases belonged to Rockwood III, 7 cases were included in Rockwood IV and Rockwood V was in 6 cases. According to the type of injury, there were 19 cases of Car accident injury, 17 cases of Falling injury, 38 cases of Fell and hurt and 3 cases of other injuries. The ratio of the left and right shoulders was 29/48. Only 4 cases were included in the D group, and it was excluded to analysis because the sample size was too small. All the above mentioned basic case data was not statistically significant different between the three groups (P>0.05). The operation time for the three groups was 44.977±8.529, 45.945±8.694 and 43.779±8.271min. Injury-to-surgery interval was 4.738±1.878, 4.899±1.943 and 4.870±1.866 days respectively. There was also no difference between the three groups (P>0.05). Before removal of hook plate, the follow-up time was 8.125±2.021, 8.477±2.167 and 7.948±1.870 months in Group A, Group B and Group C. After removal of hook plate, the follow-up time was 9.545±2.238, 9.238±2.090 and 9.792±2.148 months in three groups. Similarly, there was no statistical difference between them (Table 1).
Functional evaluation results
For evaluation of postoperative patient function, we evaluated it in two stages. One was “Before removal of hook plate” and another was “After removal of hook plate”. We used Constant-Murley criteria to evaluate. The scoring system had 4 items that were pain, ADL, strength and Rom respectively. Before removal of hook plate, the Constant scores were 63.386±8.271, 74.348±6.889 and 70.493±7.456 in three groups. In statistical analysis, the score of Group B was significantly higher than group A and group C (P<0.01). In detail, the three groups were 6.704±3.781, 10.504±3.596 and 9.220±4.141 respectively in terms of pain. In ADL, Group A was 13.215±2.692, Group B was 15.733±1.888, and Group C was 14.467±2.578. Group B and Group C were significantly higher than Group A. At the same time, Group B was also significantly higher than Group C (P<0.01). In terms of strength, there was no significant difference between the three groups. In terms of Rom, there were 22.613±4.686, 26.412±4.635 and25.571±4.228 in three groups. Group B and Group C were significantly higher than Group A. However, there was no significant difference between Group B and Group C. After removal of hook plate, the Constant scores were78.988±6.592, 87.064±4.286 and 84.090±4.837 in three groups. The score of Group B was significantly higher than group A and group C (P<0.01). In terms of pain, Group B was significantly higher than group A. In ADL, Group A was 14.613±2.365, Group B was 17.467±1.878, and Group C was 16.259±1.901. Group B and Group C were significantly higher than Group A. In terms of strength, Group B was also significantly higher than group A. There were 30.340± 2.896, 33.724±2.873 and 33.220±2.495 in three groups about Rom. Group B and Group C were significantly higher than Group A (Table 2).
Radiographic results
For evaluation of acromioclavicular joint reduction, we used CCD in imaging to evaluate. Joint reduction was obtained in all patients. Before surgery, the CCD of the three groups was 2.094±0.437, 2.173±0.429 and 2.158±0.475. There was no significant difference between the three groups. Before removal of hook plate, Group A was 0.969±0.042, Group B was 1.080±0.045, and Group C was 1.055±0.042. There was significant difference between the three groups (P<0.01). After removal of hook plate, the CCD of the three groups was 0.989±0.043, 1.082±0.041 and 1.071±0.035. There was significant difference between the three groups (Table 3).
Complications
Postoperative infection and hardware failure did not present. There were no fractures of acromion and coracoids process. There were 83 cases of shoulder pain, accounting for 30.2% of the total. Among them, Group A had 33 cases, Group B had 24 cases, and Group C had 26 cases. In statistical analysis, the incidence of group A was significantly higher than group B and group C (p<0.05). In this study, there were 93 cases of SIS. 39 cases were included in group A, 33 cases were included in group B and 21 cases were included in group C. The incidence of SIS in group A was significantly higher than group B and group C. Regarding Subacromial erosion, there were 51cases in group A, 44cases in group B and 29 cases in group C. The incidence of subacromial erosion in group A was significantly higher than group B and group C (Table 4).