Literature DB >> 26935572

Effect of Coracoid Drilling for Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction Techniques on Coracoid Fracture Risk: A Biomechanical Study.

Frank Martetschläger1, Tim Saier2, Annabelle Weigert3, Elmar Herbst3, Martin Winkler4, Julia Henschel4, Peter Augat5, Andreas B Imhoff6, Sepp Braun3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To biomechanically compare the stability of the coracoid process after an anatomic double-tunnel technique using two 4-mm drill holes or a single-tunnel technique using one 4-mm or one 2.4-mm drill hole.
METHODS: For biomechanical testing, 18 fresh-frozen cadaveric scapulae were used and randomly assigned to one of the following groups: two 4-mm drill holes (group 1), one 4-mm drill hole (group 2), or one 2.4-mm drill hole (group 3). After standardized coracoid drilling, load was applied to the conjoined tendons at a rate of 120 mm/min and ultimate failure load, along with the failure mode, was recorded.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups regarding load to failure. Mean load to failure in group 1 was 392 N; group 2, 459 N; and group 3, 506 N. The corresponding P values were .55, .74, and .20 for group 1 versus group 2, group 2 versus group 3, and group 1 versus group 3, respectively. However, the failure mode for the group with one 4-mm drill hole and the group with two 4-mm drill holes was coracoid fracture, whereas the group with one 2.4-mm drill hole showed 5 tears of the conjoined tendons and only 1 coracoid fracture (P = .015).
CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no significant difference regarding load-to-failure testing between groups, the failure mechanism analysis showed that one 2.4-mm drill hole led to less destabilization of the coracoid than one or two 4-mm drill holes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Techniques with small, 2.4-mm drill holes might decrease the risk of severe iatrogenic fracture complications.
Copyright © 2016 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26935572     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.11.049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  20 in total

1.  Lateral clavicle fracture with coracoclavicular ligament injury: a biomechanical study of 4 different repair techniques.

Authors:  Farhang Alaee; John Apostolakos; Hardeep Singh; Christian Holwein; Theresa Diermeier; Mark P Cote; Knut Beitzel; Andreas B Imhoff; Augustus D Mazzocca; Andreas Voss
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Arthroscopically Assisted Acromioclavicular and Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction for Chronic Acromioclavicular Joint Instability.

Authors:  Frank Martetschläger; Mark Tauber; Peter Habermeyer; Nael Hawi
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2016-10-31

3.  The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Dislocation of the Acromioclavicular Joint.

Authors:  Frank Martetschläger; Natascha Kraus; Markus Scheibel; Jörg Streich; Arne Venjakob; Dirk Maier
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Arthroscopically assisted acromioclavicular joint stabilization leads to significant clavicular tunnel widening in the early post-operative period.

Authors:  Siva Thangaraju; Serdar Cepni; Petra Magosch; Mark Tauber; Peter Habermeyer; Frank Martetschläger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Arthroscopic Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction Using Knotless Coracoclavicular Fixation and Soft-Tissue Anatomic Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Travis J Menge; Dimitri S Tahal; J Christoph Katthagen; Peter J Millett
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2017-01-09

6.  Clavicle and coracoid process periprosthetic fractures as late post-operative complications in arthroscopically assisted acromioclavicular joint stabilization.

Authors:  Siva Thangaraju; Mark Tauber; Peter Habermeyer; Frank Martetschläger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Arthroscopic-Assisted Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction.

Authors:  James R Satalich; Alexander Vap
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-06-17

8.  Risk of fracture of the acromion depends on size and orientation of acromial bone tunnels when performing acromioclavicular reconstruction.

Authors:  Felix Dyrna; Celso Cruz Timm de Oliveira; Michael Nowak; Andreas Voss; Elifho Obopilwe; Sepp Braun; Leo Pauzenberger; Andreas B Imhoff; Augustus D Mazzocca; Knut Beitzel
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  The importance of biomechanical properties in revision acromioclavicular joint stabilization: a scoping review.

Authors:  Felix Dyrna; Daniel P Berthold; Matthias J Feucht; Lukas N Muench; Frank Martetschläger; Andreas B Imhoff; Augustus D Mazzocca; Knut Beitzel
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic and navigation-assisted two tunnel technique for coracoclavicular ligament augmentation of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations.

Authors:  Jan Theopold; Ralf Henkelmann; Claus Zhang; Tobias Schöbel; Georg Osterhoff; Pierre Hepp
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.