Surgical versus conservative treatment of acute rockwood type Ⅲ-Ⅴ acromioclavicular joint dislocation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Injury. 2026 Feb 17;57(4):113125. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2026.113125. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injuries, accounting for approximately 12 % of all shoulder ligament injuries, are common. Conservative treatment is recommended for Rockwood type Ⅰ and Ⅱ dislocations, while the optimal treatment for type Ⅲ remains debated. For Rockwood type Ⅳ, Ⅴ, and VI dislocations, most scholars advocate surgical treatment. However, other studies have found no significant difference in clinical outcomes between conservative and surgical treatments for Rockwood type Ⅴ dislocations.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted following PRISMA guidelines, evaluated randomized controlled trials using the PICO framework. Searches were conducted across four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science. Data were extracted and assessed after evaluating the evidence levels in the selected articles. This study was registered with the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY).
RESULTS: The study included 367 patients with Rockwood type Ⅲ-Ⅴ ACJ dislocations: 193 underwent surgical treatment and 174 received conservative treatment. Analyses of three outcomes-Constant Score (CS), complications, and delayed additional surgical treatment-revealed no significant differences in functional outcomes or the necessity for additional surgeries. However, the surgical group exhibited a significantly higher complication rate compared to the conservative treatment group. Notably, for Rockwood type Ⅲ dislocations, complication rates did not differ between the treatment modalities.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis, encompassing patients with an average age ranging from 30 to 54 years, found no evidence of superiority for surgical intervention over conservative management in treating Rockwood type Ⅲ ACJ dislocations concerning functional outcomes, rates of delayed surgical interventions, or complications. Nonetheless, additional evaluations targeting other age demographics or patients with specific athletic requirements remain necessary. Furthermore, evidence concerning Rockwood type Ⅳ dislocations is notably insufficient, and available data on type Ⅴ dislocations remain limited. Given the paucity of comprehensive imaging studies and objective functional assessments, coupled with a limited number of high-quality studies, further randomized controlled trials focusing explicitly on Rockwood types Ⅲ (including subtypes ⅢA and ⅢB), Ⅳ, andⅤ are urgently warranted. Future research should particularly emphasize functional comparisons relative to pre-injury status and contralateral shoulder performance to enhance the objectivity and clinical applicability of the findings.
PMID:41724020 | DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2026.113125












