Literature DB >> 28986617

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

Felix Dyrna1,2, Celso Cruz Timm de Oliveira3, Michael Nowak3, Andreas Voss1,2, Elifho Obopilwe1, Sepp Braun2,4, Leo Pauzenberger1, Andreas B Imhoff2, Augustus D Mazzocca1, Knut Beitzel5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Current techniques for anatomic repair of the dislocated acromioclavicular (AC) joint aim on reconstruction of the AC ligaments and utilize tunnels drilled through the acromion . This improves the stability of the reconstruction but might also increase the risk of fractures at the acromion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture risk for the acromion after transacromial tunnel placement for anatomic AC joint stabilization procedure. It was hypothesized that the risk of fracture of the acromion is correlated to size and orientation of bone tunnels commonly used for anatomic AC joint reconstruction.
METHODS: A finite element analysis was used to simulate multiple bone tunnels and incoming force vectors (lateral vs. superior). Different tunnels were analysed, horizontal meaning an anterior-posterior orientation versus a vertical inferior-superior orientation through the acromion. Two tunnel diameters were simulated (2.4 vs. 4.5 mm). Furthermore, the tunnel length and distance between tunnels were altered. Forty-five cadaveric specimens (median age: 64 years, range 33-71 years) were utilized for data acquisition. Out of these, 30 specimens were used to evaluate basic tunnel orientations and drill diameters using a MTS 858 servohydraulic test system.
RESULTS: With regard to the tunnel orientation and drill hole size, the loads to failure were limited. The acromion is at higher fracture risk, with a superior to inferior directed incoming force. Position, size and direction of bone tunnels influenced the loads to failure. Horizontal tunnels with a higher diameter (4.5 mm) had the most impact on load to failure reduction. A long horizontal tunnel with a diameter of 4.5 mm reduced the load to failure with medial direction of force to 25% of the native acromion. The identical tunnel with a diameter of 2.4 mm reduced the load to failure to 61%. Both 2.4-mm horizontal tunnels with a medium and short length did not reduce the load to failure.
CONCLUSION: Tunnels placed at the acromion did not result in an increased risk of fracture. However, descriptive data showed a tendency for an increased fracture risk if tunnels are placed at the acromion, especially in horizontal direction with diameters of 4.5 mm. In addition, the pattern of fracture was dependent on the orientation of the bone tunnels and the size. However, the results indicate a "safe zone" for the placement of bone tunnels within the anterior half of the acromion, which does not affect the loads to failure at the acromion. Therefore, current techniques for anatomic AC joint reconstruction which utilize fixation of grafts or sutures at the acromion are safe within current ranges of tunnel placement and sizes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acromioclavicular joint; Acromion fracture; FEA; Internal brace; Reconstruction

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28986617     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4728-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  21 in total

1.  A biomechanical evaluation of an anatomical coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Augustus D Mazzocca; Stephen A Santangelo; Sean T Johnson; Clifford G Rios; Mark L Dumonski; Robert A Arciero
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Anatomy of the coraco-acromial arch. Relation to degeneration of the acromion.

Authors:  J G Edelson; C Taitz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1992-07

3.  Superior versus anteroinferior plating of the clavicle: a finite element study.

Authors:  Philippe Favre; Peter Kloen; David L Helfet; Clément M L Werner
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.512

4.  Comments on Complications After Arthroscopic Coracoclavicular Reconstruction Using a Single Adjustable Loop Length Suspensory Fixation Device.

Authors:  Andreas B Imhoff; Sepp Braun; Knut Beitzel
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  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

Review 6.  Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: current concepts.

Authors:  Mark Tauber
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Proximal tibial fracture following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a biomechanical analysis of the tibial tunnel as a stress riser.

Authors:  Wassim Aldebeyan; Antony Liddell; Thomas Steffen; Lorne Beckman; Paul A Martineau
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Arthroscopically Assisted Treatment of Acute Dislocations of the Acromioclavicular Joint.

Authors:  Sepp Braun; Knut Beitzel; Stefan Buchmann; Andreas B Imhoff
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2015-11-09

9.  Arthroscopically Assisted Reconstruction of Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocations: Anatomic AC Ligament Reconstruction With Protective Internal Bracing-The "AC-RecoBridge" Technique.

Authors:  Kaywan Izadpanah; Martin Jaeger; Peter Ogon; Norbert P Südkamp; Dirk Maier
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2015-04-13

10.  Arthroscopic Stabilization of Chronic Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocations: Triple- Versus Single-Bundle Reconstruction.

Authors:  Mark Tauber; Dennis Valler; Sven Lichtenberg; Petra Magosch; Philipp Moroder; Peter Habermeyer
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 6.202

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Minimum 10-Year Outcomes After Revision Anatomic Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction for Acromioclavicular Joint Instability.

Authors:  Daniel P Berthold; Lukas N Muench; Knut Beitzel; Simon Archambault; Aulon Jerliu; Mark P Cote; Bastian Scheiderer; Andreas B Imhoff; Robert A Arciero; Augustus D Mazzocca
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-09-16

3.  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

Review 4.  Treatment of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Authors:  Jeung Yeol Jeong; Yong-Min Chun
Journal:  Clin Shoulder Elb       Date:  2020-09-01

Review 5.  Grade III Acromioclavicular Separations Treated With Suspensory Fixation Techniques: A Systematic Review of Level I Through IV Studies.

Authors:  Joseph J Ruzbarsky; Bryant P Elrick; Philip-C Nolte; Justin W Arner; Peter J Millett
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-08-05

6.  Acromioclavicular joint reconstruction implants have differing ability to restore horizontal and vertical plane stability.

Authors:  Mohamed Alkoheji; Hadi El-Daou; Jillian Lee; Adrian Carlos; Livio Di Mascio; Andrew A Amis
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 4.342

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.