Literature DB >> 22541912

Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: a comparative biomechanical study of three techniques.

Alexandre Lädermann1, Boyko Gueorguiev, Bojan Stimec, Jean Fasel, Stephan Rothstock, Pierre Hoffmeyer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations indicated for surgery can be treated with several stabilization techniques. This in vitro study evaluated the acromioclavicular joint stability after 3 types of validated repair techniques compared with the native situation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine pairs (right-left) of intact cadaveric shoulder specimens were assigned to 3 study groups with randomly distributed samples according to the coracoclavicular distance. The groups were instrumented with acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular cerclages (CE), a Twin Tail TightRope (TR), or a locking compression superior and anterior clavicle plate (CP). Native and instrumented specimens were tested quasi-static nondestructively (superior: 70 N; anteroposterior: ± 35 N, 10 mm/min) and cyclically until failure (superior, valley load: 20 N; initial peak load: 70 N; increment: 0.02 N/cycle).
RESULTS: The TR study group showed the highest (in N/mm) superoinferior (73.77 ± 14.04) and anteroposterior (29.58 ± 1.52) stiffness, followed by CE (superoinferior: 59.73 ± 10.33; anteroposterior: 24.31 ± 4.14) and CP (superoinferior: 24.08 ± 5.29). Instrumentation generally led to increased superoinferior and anteroposterior stiffness in each study group but to a significant superoinferior stiffness reduction for CP (P = .029). Significantly lower coracoclavicular displacement at valley load after 1 and 500 cycles was observed for TR (P = .018) and CE (P = .041) compared with CP. Cycles to failure were significantly higher in CE (7298 ± 1244 cycles, P = .011) and TR (4434 ± 727 cycles, P = .031) compared with CP (1683 ± 509 cycles).
CONCLUSIONS: The CE and TR techniques led to similar biomechanical performances. The CE repair might mimic the native acromioclavicular joint stiffness better than the other 2 setups, leading to more physiological stabilization.
Copyright © 2013 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22541912     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  30 in total

1.  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

2.  Arthroscopic-Assisted Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction Using the TightRope Device With Allograft Augmentation: Surgical Technique.

Authors:  Rachel M Frank; Scott W Trenhaile
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2015-07-06

3.  [New horizons for minimally invasive treatment of acromioklavikular joint injuries].

Authors:  M Hoffmann; J P Petersen; J M Rueger; M Schroeder
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 4.  Management of acute unstable acromioclavicular joint injuries.

Authors:  Luis Natera Cisneros; Juan Sarasquete Reiriz
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-08-19

5.  Acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a Dog Bone button fixation alone versus Dog Bone button fixation augmented with acromioclavicular repair-a finite element analysis study.

Authors:  Sermsak Sumanont; Supachoke Nopamassiri; Artit Boonrod; Punyawat Apiwatanakul; Arunnit Boonrod; Chanakarn Phornphutkul
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-03-20

Review 6.  Shoulder acromioclavicular joint reconstruction options and outcomes.

Authors:  Simon Lee; Asheesh Bedi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-12

7.  Anatomical principles for minimally invasive reconstruction of the acromioclavicular joint with anchors.

Authors:  Chuanzhi Xiong; Yaojia Lu; Qiang Wang; Gang Chen; Hansheng Hu; Zhihua Lu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  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

9.  Electromagnetic navigation provides high accuracy for transcoracoid-transclavicular drilling.

Authors:  Michael Hoffmann; Maximilian Hartel; Malte Schroeder; Oliver Reinsch; Alexander S Spiro; Andreas H Ruecker; Lars Grossterlinden; Daniel Briem; Johannes M Rueger; Jan Phillip Petersen
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Early clinical and radiographic results of fixation with the TightRope device for Rockwood type V acromioclavicular joint dislocation: A retrospective review of 15 patients.

Authors:  Raşit Özcafer; Kutalmış Albayrak; Osman Lapçin; Engin Çetinkaya; Yavuz Arıkan; Murat Gül
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 1.511

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.