Literature DB >> 16282577

A biomechanical evaluation of an anatomical coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction.

Augustus D Mazzocca1, Stephen A Santangelo, Sean T Johnson, Clifford G Rios, Mark L Dumonski, Robert A Arciero.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous surgical techniques described, there have been few studies evaluating the biomechanical performance of acromioclavicular joint reconstructions.
PURPOSE: To compare a newly developed anatomical coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction with a modified Weaver-Dunn procedure and a recently described arthroscopic method using ultrastrong nonabsorbable suture material. STUDY
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Forty-two fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (72.8 +/- 13.4 years) were randomly assigned to 3 groups: arthroscopic reconstruction, anatomical coracoclavicular reconstruction, and a modified Weaver-Dunn procedure. Bone mineral density was obtained on all specimens. Specimens were tested to 70 N in 3 directions, anterior, posterior, and superior, comparing the intact to the reconstructed states. Superior cyclic loading at 70 N for 3000 cycles was then performed at a rate of 1 Hz, followed by a load to failure test (120 mm/min) to simulate physiologic states at the acromioclavicular joint.
RESULTS: In comparison to the intact state, the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure had significantly (P < .05) greater laxity than the anatomical coracoclavicular reconstruction or the arthroscopic reconstruction. There were no significant differences in bone mineral density (g/cm(2)), load to failure, superior migration over 3000 cycles, or superior displacement. The anatomical coracoclavicular reconstruction had significantly less (P < .05) anterior and posterior translation than the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure. The arthroscopic reconstruction yielded significantly less anterior displacement (P < .05) than the modified Weaver-Dunn procedure.
CONCLUSION: The anatomical coracoclavicular reconstruction has less anterior and posterior translation and more closely approximates the intact state, restoring function of the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A more anatomical reconstruction using a free tendon graft of both the trapezoid and conoid ligaments may provide a stronger, permanent biologic solution for dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint. This reconstruction may minimize recurrent subluxation and residual pain and permit earlier rehabilitation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16282577     DOI: 10.1177/0363546505281795

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  110 in total

1.  Biomechanical properties of repairs for dislocated AC joints using suture button systems with integrated tendon augmentation.

Authors:  Knut Beitzel; Elifho Obopilwe; David M Chowaniec; Michael D Nowak; Bryan T Hanypsiak; James J Guerra; Robert A Arciero; Augustus D Mazzocca
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-12-31       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Arthroscopically assisted anatomical coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using tendon graft.

Authors:  Yon-Sik Yoo; Young-Jin Seo; Kyu-Cheol Noh; Bishu Prasad Patro; Do-Young Kim
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  [Arthroscopic stabilization of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation].

Authors:  C Gerhardt; N Kraus; S Greiner; M Scheibel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular PDS augmentation for complete AC joint dislocation showed insufficient properties in a cadaver model.

Authors:  Frank Martetschläger; Arne Buchholz; Gunther Sandmann; Sebastian Siebenlist; Stefan Döbele; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Ulrich Stöckle; Peter J Millett; Florian Elser; Andreas Lenich
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Acromioclavicular joint dislocations: coracoclavicular reconstruction with and without additional direct acromioclavicular repair.

Authors:  Lukas Weiser; Jakob V Nüchtern; Kay Sellenschloh; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Johannes M Rueger; Michael Hoffmann; Wolfgang Lehmann; Lars G Großterlinden
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-12-19       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Recurrent acromioclavicular joint dislocation with an associated coracoid fracture following acromioclavicular joint reconstruction.

Authors:  M Karia; N Al-Hadithy; G Tytherleigh-Strong
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 1.891

7.  A comparison between two double-button endoscopically assisted surgical techniques for the treatment acute acromioclavicular dislocations.

Authors:  P Vulliet; M Le Hanneur; V Cladiere; P Loriaut; P Boyer
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-08-31

8.  Surgical treatment of a concurrent type 5 acromioclavicular joint dislocation and a failed anterior glenohumeral joint stabilization.

Authors:  Abbas Rashid; Christopher Lawrence; Graham Tytherleigh-Strong
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2016-07-04

9.  All arthroscopic stabilization of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation with fiberwire and endobutton system.

Authors:  Marco Spoliti; Mauro De Cupis; Alessio Giai Via; Francesco Oliva
Journal:  Muscles Ligaments Tendons J       Date:  2015-02-05

10.  Value of additional acromioclavicular cerclage for horizontal stability in complete acromioclavicular separation: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Tim Saier; Arne J Venjakob; Philipp Minzlaff; Peter Föhr; Filip Lindell; Andreas B Imhoff; Stephan Vogt; Sepp Braun
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.