| Literature DB >> 25127715 |
Zhiyong Hou1, Jove Graham, Yingze Zhang, Kent Strohecker, Daniel Feldmann, Thomas R Bowen, Wei Chen, Wade Smith.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coracoclavicular (CC) ligament reconstruction with semitendinosus tendon (ST) grafts has become more popular and has achieved relatively good results; however optimal reconstruction technique, single-tunnel or two-tunnel, still remains controversial. This paper is to compare the clinical and radiographic data of allogenous ST grafting with single- or two-tunnel reconstruction techniques of the AC joint.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25127715 PMCID: PMC4139139 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-14-53
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Figure 1ST allograft reconstruction of the AC joint with single-tunnel technique.
Figure 2ST Allograft with tightrope augment reconstruction of the CC joint with single-tunnel technique.
Figure 3ST allograft reconstruction of the CC joint with two-tunnel technique.
Figure 4ST Allograft with tightrope augment reconstruction of the CC joint with two-tunnel technique.
The modification of the UCLA rating scale
| Maintenance of reduction | |
| Reduced | 4 |
| Subluxion | 2 |
| Dislocation | 0 |
| Range of motion | |
| Full | 2 |
| Improved from preoperative | 1 |
| No change from preoperative | 0 |
| Strength | |
| Normal | 2 |
| Improved from preoperative | 1 |
| Unimproved from preoperative | 0 |
| Pain | |
| None | 4 |
| With strenuous activity | 3 |
| With moderate activity | 2 |
| With mild activity | 1 |
| All the time | 0 |
| Weakness | |
| None | 2 |
| With strenuous activity | 1 |
| All the time | 0 |
| Change in occupation | |
| Same or more strenuous | 2 |
| Less strenuous | 0 |
| Complication | |
| None | 2 |
| Minor/resolved | 1 |
| Major/affected outcome | 0 |
| Patient satisfaction | |
| Yes | 2 |
| No or unsure | 0 |
Results: excellent, 18–20; good, 15–17; fair, 12–14; poor, ≤ 11.
Demographic and injury characteristics, by single-tunnel and two-tunnel group
| Gender | ||
| Male | 6 | 9 |
| Female | 5 | 1 |
| Mean age (range), years | 37 (20–55) | 42 (20–63) |
| Side of Fracture | ||
| Right | 5 | 8 |
| Left | 6 | 2 |
| Mechanism of Injury | ||
| Sporting | 6 | 6 |
| Traffic accident | 4 | 2 |
| Fall | 1 | 2 |
| Rockwood Classification | ||
| C3 | 1 | 0 |
| C4 | 0 | 1 |
| C5 | 10 | 8 |
| C6 | 0 | 1 |
| Mean length of follow up (range), months | 16 (12–38) | 15 (12–40) |
Number of patients receiving single-tunnel vs. two-tunnel techniques, subdivided by augmentation type, with clinical outcome results based on modification of the UCLA rating scale
| Excellent | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Good | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Fair | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Poor | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 6 | 5 | 4 | 6 |
| N(%) with excellent or good | 1 (17%) | 1 (20%) | 3 (75%) | 4 (67%) |
*Two-tunnel group had significantly higher percentage of good-to-excellent outcomes than single-tunnel group, p = 0.03.
^No significant difference between with vs. without augmentation for single-tunnel group, p > 0.99.
#No significant difference between ST-tightrope vs. ST-ST for two-tunnel group, p > 0.99.