Notes
9
Disorders of the Acromioclavicular Joint
The acromioclavicular joint is composed of the articulation between the anteromedial acromion of the scapula and the lateral aspect of the clavicle.1,2 Between these bony elements, there is a fibrocartilaginous disc, which functions to reduce the wear from stress applied across the joint during repetitive overhead lifting or even activities of daily living. The acromioclavicular ligament, which is composed of anterior, posterior, superior, and inferior components, serves as the primary stabilizer of the joint and controls horizontal motion.3 Further, the coracoclavicular ligaments, the conoid and trapezoid, function to provide vertical stability of the joint. In addition to these structures, which provide static stability, the adjacent deltoid, trapezius, and serratus anterior musculature provide dynamic stability of the joint. Acromioclavicular joint disorders are a common source of shoulder pain and can result from either age-related degeneration or traumatic injury, which are discussed below.
Acromioclavicular Joint Degeneration
In some individuals, the degeneration of this disc begins as early as twenty years old and is a main determinant of the eventual osteoarthritis of this joint.4 It has been shown that 54 to 57 percent of elderly patients show evidence of acromioclavicular joint degeneration on radiographs.5 Etiologies of acromioclavicular (AC) joint degeneration include age-related degeneration of the intra-articular disc, post-traumatic changes, and inflammatory or septic arthritis. Distal clavicular osteolysis, commonly seen among athletes and weightlifters, is another overuse injury, which causes pain in the acromioclavicular joint. Distal clavicle osteolysis is the result of repetitive excess loading during adduction, internal rotation, and flexion of the shoulder, common movements in bench pressing or overhead lifting.6 Patients with acromioclavicular joint degeneration will typically describe an insidious onset of anterior or superior pain of the affected shoulder.1,7 Pain will be worse with cross-body movements or overhead activity.
Acromioclavicular Joint Separation
Although age-related degenerative changes constitute most acromioclavicular joint disorders, traumatic injury to the AC joint resulting in a separation is also a common shoulder injury. These injuries are notably more common in men, young adults in their twenties or thirties, and those who participate in contact sports. Filk et al. demonstrated that acromioclavicular joint injuries were the third most common injury in collegiate men’s ice hockey players.8
Traumatic acromioclavicular joint injuries can occur through either a direct or an indirect mechanism.7 The direct mechanism is a downward force on the lateral aspect of an adducted shoulder, which pushes the acromion inferiorly and medially. Most commonly, this occurs after a fall directly on the superolateral shoulder. In contrast, the indirect mechanism is a fall on an outstretched arm, which generates a superiorly directed force.7 Regardless of etiology, the pain with traumatic acromioclavicular joint injuries is classically located in the anterior or superior shoulder and worsens with movement or exertion.
The Rockwood Classification is the most widely utilized classification system to describe and stratify the degree of acromioclavicular joint separations. It organizes AC joint separation—based on involvement of the acromioclavicular joint, the coracoclavicular ligaments, and the deltoid and trapezius muscles—into six degrees of injury.9 Type I involves only a sprain of the acromioclavicular ligament with no significant changes on x-ray. Type II injuries involve a complete tear of the acromioclavicular ligament, a disruption of the corresponding joint, and a sprain of the coracoclavicular ligament. X-rays show an increase of the coracoclavicular distance of less than 25 percent compared to the contralateral. In Type III injuries, the acromioclavicular ligament and coracoclavicular ligaments are both torn, and the coracoclavicular distance is seen increased by 25 to 100 percent on x-rays of the affected shoulder compared to the unaffected shoulder. Type IV injuries involve tears of the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments and a posterior dislocation of the lateral clavicle. A Type V injury includes tears of the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments, a superior dislocation of the AC joint, and an increase of the coracoclavicular distance by 100 percent or greater in the affected compared to the unaffected shoulder on x-ray. Finally, Type VI injuries, which are rare, involve an inferior dislocation of the lateral clavicle.9 Additionally, the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments are torn.
Physical Examination
Physical examination of a patient with acromioclavicular joint pathology should begin with thorough observation of the affected shoulder for swelling, bruising, prominence, or asymmetry.7,10,11 Comparison should be made to the contralateral side, and signs of obvious deformity should be noted (figure 9.1).
Next, the examiner should palpate the entire shoulder girdle. The areas palpated should include the sternoclavicular joint, the clavicle, and the acromioclavicular joint. The examiner should note any areas that elicit tenderness and be aware of any acromioclavicular joint prominence (figure 9.2; video 9.1). If there is asymmetry or superior displacement, the distal end of the clavicle should be further palpated to see if the deformity is partially or completely reducible. Furthermore, the overlying skin should be assessed for integrity and perfusion. Although rare, cases of acromioclavicular joint cysts have been reported in the literature, most commonly in elderly patients. This manifests radiologically as the Geyser sign and results secondary to a chronic rotator cuff tear that allows for the communication of synovial fluid from the glenohumeral joint into the acromioclavicular joint, which creates a palpable subcutaneous fluid collection (figure 9.3).
Video 9.1: Acromioclavicular Joint Tenderness. The examiner uses two fingers to put downward pressure on the patient’s right acromioclavicular joint. The test is considered positive if there is pain upon palpation. Here, the maneuver elicits pain in the patient, indicating a positive test.
Next, range of motion of the ipsilateral glenohumeral joint should be assessed, specifically with regard to any limitations in forward elevation, external rotation, and internal rotation. Active and passive range of motion measurements and strength testing should be performed on the affected shoulder and compared to the contralateral side. Patients with increasing severity of AC joint separation will experience more difficulty with forward elevation and shoulder strength.
Special Tests
In addition to point tenderness at the AC joint, several special tests can also be performed to assess the presence of acromioclavicular joint disorder. One of these tests is the cross-body adduction test (video 9.2; figure 9.4).12 In this test, the affected arm is brought to 90 degrees of flexion. The examiner then helps the patient bring the affected shoulder to the contralateral side via horizontal adduction. This test is considered positive if it elicits pain at the acromioclavicular joint upon adduction across the body (video 9.3).
Video 9.2: Cross-body Adduction Test. The examiner performs the cross-body adduction test by passively raising the patient’s shoulder to 90 degrees of forward flexion. The examiner palpates the patient’s acromioclavicular joint with one hand. The examiner then horizontally adducts the patient’s arm across the body, keeping the other hand at the patient’s wrist for support. The test is considered positive if this maneuver elicits pain over the acromioclavicular joint.
Video 9.3: Cross-body Adduction Test. The examiner palpates the affected shoulder with her left hand overlying the patient’s acromioclavicular joint and the other hand supporting the patient’s wrist. Then, the examiner horizontally adducts the affected arm across the body, with the shoulder passively held in 90 degrees of forward flexion. Here, the patient notes that this horizontal adduction elicits pain in the area overlying the acromioclavicular joint, indicating a positive cross-body adduction test result, and associated acromioclavicular joint pathology.
Lastly, the active compression test, also known as O’Brien’s active compression test, is performed to assess for potential acromioclavicular pathology as well (video 9.4).12
Video 9.4: O'Brien's Active Compression Test. The examiner performs the active compression test on a patient with acromioclavicular joint pathology. The patient’s right shoulder is placed in 90 degrees of forward elevation with the elbow fully extended. The arm is then adducted 10 to15 degrees. First, the forearm is supinated with the thumb pointing to the ceiling. In this position, the examiner exerts an inferiorly directed force to the arm while the patient exerts resistance. Next, the forearm is pronated with the thumb pointing to the floor. In this position, the examiner again exerts an inferiorly directed force to the arm while the patient resists. A test result is considered positive if pain increases when the forearm is pronated (second position) and is relieved when the arm is supinated (first position). A positive test is suggestive of a superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tear if the pain is felt in the glenohumeral joint or acromioclavicular joint pathology if the location of pain is at the AC joint. Here, the patient has a positive right-sided active compression test.
To perform O’Brien’s active compression test, the affected shoulder is put into 90 degrees of forward flexion with the elbow fully extended and the arm adducted 10 to 15 degrees. In the first position, the patient supinates the forearm with the thumb pointed to the ceiling. The patient is told to forward flex the shoulder against the examiner’s resistance. In the second position, the patient pronates the forearm with the thumb pointed to the floor. Again, the patient is told to forward flex the shoulder against the examiner’s resistance. A test result is considered positive when there is greater pain with the forearm pronated and the thumb to the floor than when the forearm is supinated with the thumb pointed to the ceiling. Pain deep in the shoulder is consistent with a SLAP tear, while pain at the AC joint superiorly is indicative of acromioclavicular joint pathology.
In addition to these physical examination maneuvers, evidence of acromioclavicular joint injury can also be assessed visually and radiographically (figure 9.5).
Sensitivities and specificities for all examinations described in chapter 9 are outlined in table 9.1.13,14
| Test | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
| Cross-body Adduction Test13 | 77% | 79% |
| O’Brien’s Active Compression Test13,14 | 67% | 37% |
Key Terminology
Physical examination maneuver for the detection of acromioclavicular joint disorders. The affected arm is brought to 90 degrees of flexion. The examiner then helps the patient bring the affected shoulder to the contralateral side via horizontal adduction. A positive test is indicated by pain at the acromioclavicular joint upon adduction. ↵
O’Brien’s Active Compression Test
Physical examination maneuver used in detecting SLAP tears and acromioclavicular joint pathology. The patient’s shoulder is placed in 90 degrees of forward elevation with the elbow fully extended and the arm adducted 10 to 15 degrees. In the first position, the patient’s thumb is directed to the floor, and the examiner applies an inferiorly directed force to the patient’s arm. In the second position, the patient’s thumb is now directed toward the ceiling, and the examiner again applies an inferiorly directed force to the patient’s arm. A positive test occurs if there is pain in the first position with the thumb directed downward that is improved or alleviated with the second position. A “deep” location of pain is suggestive of a SLAP tear, while a “superficial” location of pain is suggestive of acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) pathology. ↵
References
- Frank RM, Cotter EJ, Leroux TS, Romeo AA. Acromioclavicular joint injuries: evidence-based treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27(17):e775-e788. ↵
- Wong M, Kiel J. Anatomy, Shoulder and Upper Limb, Acromioclavicular Joint. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls; 2022. ↵
- Mazzocca AD, Arciero RA, Bicos J. Evaluation and treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(2):316-329. ↵
- Ha AS, Petscavage-Thomas JM, Tagoylo GH. Acromioclavicular joint: the other joint in the shoulder. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):375-385. ↵
- Docimo S, Jr., Kornitsky D, Futterman B, Elkowitz DE. Surgical treatment for acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis: patient selection, surgical options, complications, and outcome. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2008;1(2):154-160. ↵
- Evans DC, Schroeder JD. Distal Clavicular Osteolysis. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls; 2023. ↵
- Simovitch R, Sanders B, Ozbaydar M, Lavery K, Warner JJ. Acromioclavicular joint injuries: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(4):207-219. ↵
- Flik K, Lyman S, Marx RG. American collegiate men’s ice hockey: an analysis of injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(2):183-187. ↵
- Gorbaty JD, Hsu JE, Gee AO. Classifications in brief: Rockwood classification of acromioclavicular joint separations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(1):283-287. ↵
- Krill MK, Rosas S, Kwon K, Dakkak A, Nwachukwu BU, McCormick F. A concise evidence-based physical examination for diagnosis of acromioclavicular joint pathology: a systematic review. Phys Sportsmed. 2018;46(1):98-104. ↵
- Sirin E, Aydin N, Mert Topkar O. Acromioclavicular joint injuries: diagnosis, classification and ligamentoplasty procedures. EFORT Open Rev. 2018;3(7):426-433. ↵
- Cotter EJ, Hannon CP, Christian D, Frank RM, Bach BR, Jr. Comprehensive examination of the athlete’s shoulder. Sports Health. 2018;10(4):366-375. ↵
- Chronopoulos E, Kim TK, Park HB, Ashenbrenner D, McFarland EG. Diagnostic value of physical tests for isolated chronic acromioclavicular lesions. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(3):655-661. ↵
- Hegedus EJ, Goode AP, Cook CE, et al. Which physical examination tests provide clinicians with the most value when examining the shoulder? update of a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual tests. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(14):964-978. ↵