Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Review of Weaver and Dunn on treatment of acromioclavicular injuries, especially complete acromioclavicular separation
  1. Daniël E Verstift1,
  2. Matthijs P Somford2,
  3. Derek F P van Deurzen1,
  4. Michel P J van den Bekerom1
  1. 1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, OLVG, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rijnstate, Arnhem, Gelderland, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Daniël E Verstift, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, OLVG, 1090 HM Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands; daniel_verstift{at}


This classic discusses the original publication “Treatment of acromioclavicular injuries, especially complete acromioclavicular separation” by Weaver and Dunn, which collaborated to develop a technique for acromioclavicular joint reconstruction in 1972. Their surgical technique described resection of 2 cm of the distal clavicle and transfer of the acromial end of the coracoacromial ligament into the medullary canal of the distal clavicle. (modified) Weaver-Dunn procedures have been regarded as one of the most effective techniques to treat complete acromioclavicular joint dislocation for a long time. However, anatomic reconstructions have taken over this position since recent biomechanical studies have demonstrated superior results. Although the Weaver-Dunn procedure has fallen out of favour, it remains of historical significance. For this reason, this review will comprise the historical overview of the Weaver-Dunn procedure, the men behind the eponym and the clinical implication then and now.

  • shoulder
  • dislocation
  • instability
  • repair / reconstruction

Statistics from


  • Contributors DEV wrote the manuscript. DvP helped to get in contact with the experts. MS and MPJvdB supervised the project. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.