PURPOSE: To investigate the biomechanical performance of four different methods used for coracoclavicular (CC) ligament reconstruction in a lateral clavicle fracture repair. METHODS: Native displacement, translation, and rotation at the acromioclavicular joint of 24 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested. A reproducible fracture in the lateral third of the clavicle was created by dissecting both CC ligaments. Each specimen was then repaired with plate fixation of the fracture and the following CC repair technique: (1) Cortical button. (2) Suture anchor and plate button. (3) Suture anchor no plate button, and (4) Suture around coracoid. All reconstructed specimens were then re-tested for displacement, translation, and load to failure, and compared to their native results. Groups 1 and 3 were investigated for rotational load. RESULTS: There was no difference in load to failure between the repaired groups (p: ns). Group 1 showed less superior and anterior translations (p < 0.05). Group 2 showed significantly less superior translation (p = 0.003), but no significance with anterior and posterior translations to the native joint. Group 3 showed less superior and posterior translations (p = 0.005 and p = 0.039). Anterior and posterior translations were increased in group 4 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The biomechanical analyses did not show any significance in load to failure or displacement after cyclic loading among the study groups. All repairs were effective in preventing superior translation. Groups 1 and 2 demonstrated increased horizontal stability compared to the native state. All 4 methods are clinically viable options for CC ligament repair.
PURPOSE: To investigate the biomechanical performance of four different methods used for coracoclavicular (CC) ligament reconstruction in a lateral clavicle fracture repair. METHODS: Native displacement, translation, and rotation at the acromioclavicular joint of 24 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested. A reproducible fracture in the lateral third of the clavicle was created by dissecting both CC ligaments. Each specimen was then repaired with plate fixation of the fracture and the following CC repair technique: (1) Cortical button. (2) Suture anchor and plate button. (3) Suture anchor no plate button, and (4) Suture around coracoid. All reconstructed specimens were then re-tested for displacement, translation, and load to failure, and compared to their native results. Groups 1 and 3 were investigated for rotational load. RESULTS: There was no difference in load to failure between the repaired groups (p: ns). Group 1 showed less superior and anterior translations (p < 0.05). Group 2 showed significantly less superior translation (p = 0.003), but no significance with anterior and posterior translations to the native joint. Group 3 showed less superior and posterior translations (p = 0.005 and p = 0.039). Anterior and posterior translations were increased in group 4 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The biomechanical analyses did not show any significance in load to failure or displacement after cyclic loading among the study groups. All repairs were effective in preventing superior translation. Groups 1 and 2 demonstrated increased horizontal stability compared to the native state. All 4 methods are clinically viable options for CC ligament repair.
Entities:
Keywords:
AC joint; Biomechanics; Coracoclavicular ligament injury; Lateral clavicle fracture
Authors: Steven M Klein; Brian L Badman; Christopher J Keating; Dennis S Devinney; Mark A Frankle; Mark A Mighell Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Frank Martetschläger; Tim Saier; Annabelle Weigert; Elmar Herbst; Martin Winkler; Julia Henschel; Peter Augat; Andreas B Imhoff; Sepp Braun Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2016-02-28 Impact factor: 4.772