Type 4 acromion: a new classification.

W J Vanarthos; J U Monu

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10150316

Type 4 acromion: a new classification.

W J Vanarthos·J U Monu

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The three types of acromial processes previously described in the literature include type 1, in which the undersurface is straight, and types 2 and 3, in which the undersurface is concave. In this report, a fourth type of acromion is described in which the undersurface is convex near its distal end. The frequency of a type 4 acromion in the normal population is discussed based on a retrospective review of the MR examinations of 30 patients that originally were read as normal.

Explore related subjects

Acromioclavicular Joint Acromion Adolescent Adult Athletic Injuries Diagnosis, Differential Female Humans Magnetic Resonance Imaging Male Middle Aged Reference Values Risk Factors Rotator Cuff Rotator Cuff Injuries Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

W J Vanarthos, J U Monu. 1995. Type 4 acromion: a new classification.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10150316/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Shoulder function: the perfect compromise between mobility and stability.

Shoulder function is a compromise between mobility and stability. Its large mobility is based on the structure of the glenohumeral joint and simultaneous motion of all segments of the shoulder girdle. This requires fine-tuned muscle coordination. Given the joint's mobility, stability is mainly based on active muscle control with only a minor role for the glenohumeral capsule, labrum and ligaments. In this review factors influencing stability and mobility and their consequences for strength are discussed, with special attention to the effects of morphology, muscle function and sensory information.

Acromioclavicular Joint↗

PubMed2007

Surgical treatment of symptomatic acromioclavicular joint problems: a systematic review.

Excision of the distal clavicle has become the mainstay of surgical treatment for acromioclavicular joint arthritis and osteolysis refractory to nonoperative management. Surgical options for symptomatic acromioclavicular joint abnormalities refractory to nonoperative treatment are the classic open distal clavicle excision, direct (superior) arthroscopic excision, and indirect (bursal) arthroscopic distal clavicle excision. We asked whether any of these three procedures provided a better result. We systematically reviewed the medical literature (Medline, EMBASE), assigned a level of evidence for available studies, and critically identified the flaws and biases in the studies to provide comparisons between the published reports. We limited the literature review to clinical reports in the English language published in peer-reviewed journals. The literature supports surgical excision, but the reports are all Level III or IV evidence consisting largely of retrospective case series. Arthroscopic distal clavicle resection has provided more "good or excellent" results than has the open procedure, but is comprised of low-level evidence. Distal clavicle resection has provided satisfactory results when combined with other procedures. Simple distal clavicle resection may have worse outcomes when performed after preceding trauma. The published reports of the removal of medial acromial and inferior distal clavicle osteophytes when performing subacromial decompression are conflicting and may increase post-operative acromioclavicular symptoms.

Acromioclavicular Joint↗

PubMed2007

Treatment of grade III acromioclavicular joint injuries: a systematic review.

Although nonoperative treatment is considered the standard of care for the treatment of Grade I and II acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries, the treatment of Grade III injuries is controversial. There are as many methods of nonoperative treatment as there are for operative stabilization. Most of the literature represents Level IV evidence with very few Level II and III studies upon which to base decisions. A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed to determine if Grade III AC joint separations are best treated operatively or nonoperatively. Based on limited low-evidence, nonoperative treatment was deemed more appropriate than traditional nonoperative treatments because the results of the latter were not clearly better and were associated with higher complication rates, longer convalescence, and longer time away from work and sport.

Acromioclavicular Joint↗