Dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint is a relatively common injury and a number of surgical interventions have been described for its treatment. Recently, a synthetic ligament device has become available and been successfully used, however, like other non-native solutions, a compromise must be reached when choosing non-anatomical locations for their placement. This cadaveric study aimed to assess the effect of different clavicular anchorage points for the Lockdown device on the reduction of acromioclavicular joint dislocations, and suggest an optimal location. We also assessed whether further stability is provided using a coracoacromial ligament transfer (a modified Neviaser technique). The acromioclavicular joint was exposed on seven fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders. The joint was reconstructed using the Lockdown implant using four different clavicular anchorage points and reduction was measured. The coracoacromial ligament was then transferred to the lateral end of the clavicle, and the joint re-assessed. If the Lockdown ligament was secured at the level of the conoid tubercle, the acromioclavicular joint could be reduced anatomically in all cases. If placed medial or 2 cm lateral, the joint was irreducible. If the Lockdown was placed 1 cm lateral to the conoid tubercle, the joint could be reduced with difficulty in four cases. Correct placement of the Lockdown device is crucial to allow anatomical joint reduction. Even when the Lockdown was placed over the conoid tubercle, anterior clavicle displacement remained but this could be controlled using a coracoacromial ligament transfer.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1657–61.

Recurrence of back or leg pain after discectomy is a well-recognised problem with an incidence of up to 28%. Once conservative measures have failed, several surgical options are available and have been tried with varying degrees of success. In this study, 42 patients with recurrent symptoms after discectomy underwent less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (LI-PLIF). Clinical outcome was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires and visual analogue scales for back (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP). There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome measures (p < 0.001). The debate around which procedure is the most effective for these patients remains controversial.

Our results show that LI-PLIF is as effective as any other surgical procedure. However, given that it is less invasive, we feel that it should be considered as the preferred option.