• Am J Sports Med · Oct 2011

    Comparative Study

    Biomechanical comparison of arthroscopic repairs for acromioclavicular joint instability: suture button systems without biological augmentation.

    • Knut Beitzel, Elifho Obopilwe, David M Chowaniec, Genghis E Niver, Michael D Nowak, Bryan T Hanypsiak, James J Guerra, Robert A Arciero, and Augustus D Mazzocca.
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06034, USA.
    • Am J Sports Med. 2011 Oct 1;39(10):2218-25.

    BackgroundArthroscopic procedures for reconstruction of acromioclavicular (AC) joint separations are increasingly used in clinical practice. Multiple surgical techniques exist, but there are still few data on biomechanical performances of commonly used arthroscopic techniques and fixation methods.HypothesisSingle and double clavicular tunnel reconstructions show comparable primary stability with a modified Weaver-Dunn procedure, and double tunnel constructs show superior horizontal stability.Study DesignControlled laboratory study.MethodsThe AC joints of 40 cadaveric shoulders were tested for anterior, posterior, and superior translation (70-N load) and maximal load to failure (superior) with the MTS 858 Bionix II Servohydraulic testing system. Shoulders were assigned to 4 groups: (1) native (n = 18), (2) coracoclavicular (CC) reconstruction with 1 clavicular and 1 coracoid tunnel (SCT) fixed with a suture pulley and 2 buttons (n = 8), (3) CC reconstruction with 2 clavicular and 1 coracoid tunnel (DCT) fixed with a suture pulley and 3 buttons (n = 8), and (4) modified Weaver-Dunn reconstruction (n = 6).ResultsNative specimens showed a mean anterior translation of 7.92 mm (±1.69 mm), a mean posterior translation of 7.84 mm (±2.09 mm), and a superior translation of 4.28 mm (±1.81 mm). Maximal load to failure was 579.44 N (±148.01 N). The SCT technique showed a mean anterior translation of 5.81 mm (±1.16 mm), posterior translation of 8.30 mm (±1.94 mm), and a superior translation of 2.28 mm (±0.52 mm). The maximal load to failure was 591.35 N (±231.17 N). Anterior and superior translations were significantly less compared with the native specimen (P = .005 and P = .003). The DCT technique had an anterior translation of 4.68 mm (±0.6 mm), posterior translation of 6.85 mm (±0.83 mm), and superior translation of 2.09 mm (±0.86 mm). The mean maximal load to failure was 651.16 N (±226.93 N). Anterior and superior translations were significantly less compared with the native specimens (P = .000 and P = .001). No statistically significant differences were shown between SCT and DCT reconstruction for all measurements (P > .05). One reconstruction of the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure failed directly after mounting it into the testing device. The remaining 5 showed a mean anterior translation of 11.36 mm (±3.17 mm), a mean posterior translation of 13.51 mm (±2.21 mm), and a mean superior translation of 3.31 mm (±0.47 mm). Anterior and posterior translations were significantly increased compared with the native specimen (P = .019 and P = .000). The mean maximal load to failure measured 311.13 N (±52.2 N) and was significantly less compared with the native specimen (P = .000). The Weaver-Dunn technique showed significantly less maximal load to failure and more anterior and posterior translation compared with SCT and DCT (P ≤ .05).ConclusionIsolated reconstruction of the CC ligaments using single and double clavicular tunnel techniques results in a high load to failure for superior translation, which is equal to the native stability, and less translation in all 3 directions as well as higher superior stability when compared with the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure. A potential drawback is the risk of coracoid fracture, as the high load to failure of the device may exceed load to failure of cortical bone prior to device breakage.Clinical RelevanceSingle clavicular tunnel arthroscopic reconstructions of the coracoacromial ligaments show good biomechanical results.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.