The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party-that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs...

Background Controversy surrounds the indication for treatment of type 3 acromioclavicular joint dislocation, and the optimal reconstructive technique has not yet been defined. Since the first description of the Weaver-Dunn procedure, several studies have described the clinical and radiological results that can be expected postoperatively; however, few studies have evaluated the outcomes of this technique for chronic type 3 acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Purpose/Hypothesis The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional and radiographic mid- to long-term outcomes of a modified Weaver-Dunn procedure for chronic Rockwood type 3 acromioclavicular joint dislocation. We hypothesized that (1) functional outcomes comparable with sex- and age-matched healthy individuals could be achieved with the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure and (2) joint stability could be restored after surgery. Study Design Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods Out of 30 patients who sustained a chronic type 3 acromioclavicular joint dislocation, 27 had a minimum 12-month follow-up and were included in the study. All patients underwent a modified Weaver-Dunn procedure. The Constant-Murley score was used to assess patient postoperative function. Subjective evaluation of patient satisfaction with surgery was also recorded. Radiological assessment was performed postoperatively to evaluate superoinferior and anteroposterior joint stability. Results After a mean follow-up period of 51.6 months, the mean Constant-Murley score was 90.1, which was 97.2% that of a group of sex- and age-matched healthy individuals. In the multivariate analysis, higher Constant-Murley score was associated with male sex (β = 0.385; P = .043) and higher subjective satisfaction scale (β = 0.528; P = .003). All patients returned to their previous work and sport activity levels having high satisfaction with surgery. Successful vertical acromioclavicular joint reduction was obtained in all but 1 patient; however, horizontal joint stability was not completely restored with the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure. No intraoperative complications occurred, and the postoperative complication rate was 7.4%. Conclusion In patients with chronic type 3 acromioclavicular joint dislocation, the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure is an effective technique to restore vertical but not horizontal joint stability 4 years after surgery. High levels of satisfaction with surgery and functional outcomes comparable with sex- and age-matched healthy individuals can be achieved.