INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to anatomically compare distal clavicle and coracoid autografts and their potential to augment anterior-inferior glenoid bone loss. METHODS: Ten millimeters of distal clavicle and 20 mm of coracoid were harvested bilaterally from 32 cadavers. Length, weight, and height were measured and surface area and density were calculated. For each graft, ipsilateral measurements were compared and the ability to restore corresponding glenoid bone loss was calculated. RESULTS: Distal clavicle grafts were larger than coracoid grafts with respect to length (22.3 mm versus 17.7 mm; p < 0.001), height (12.49 mm versus 9.65 mm; p < 0.001), mass (2.72 g versus 2.45 g; p = 0.0437), and volume (2.36 cm3 versus 1.96 cm3; p = 0.002). Coracoid grafts had larger widths (14.56 mm versus 10.52 mm; p < 0.001) and greater density (1.24 g/cm3 versus 1.18 g/cm3; p < 0.001). Distal clavicle surface area was greater on both the articular (2.93 cm2 versus 1.5 cm2; p < 0.001) and superior surfaces (2.76 cm2 versus 1.5 cm2; p < 0.001) when compared to lateral coracoid surface area. DISCUSSION: Distal clavicle grafts were larger and restored larger bony defects but had greater variability and lower density than coracoid grafts. Clinical studies are needed to compare these graft options.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to anatomically compare distal clavicle and coracoid autografts and their potential to augment anterior-inferior glenoid bone loss. METHODS: Ten millimeters of distal clavicle and 20 mm of coracoid were harvested bilaterally from 32 cadavers. Length, weight, and height were measured and surface area and density were calculated. For each graft, ipsilateral measurements were compared and the ability to restore corresponding glenoid bone loss was calculated. RESULTS: Distal clavicle grafts were larger than coracoid grafts with respect to length (22.3 mm versus 17.7 mm; p < 0.001), height (12.49 mm versus 9.65 mm; p < 0.001), mass (2.72 g versus 2.45 g; p = 0.0437), and volume (2.36 cm3 versus 1.96 cm3; p = 0.002). Coracoid grafts had larger widths (14.56 mm versus 10.52 mm; p < 0.001) and greater density (1.24 g/cm3 versus 1.18 g/cm3; p < 0.001). Distal clavicle surface area was greater on both the articular (2.93 cm2 versus 1.5 cm2; p < 0.001) and superior surfaces (2.76 cm2 versus 1.5 cm2; p < 0.001) when compared to lateral coracoid surface area. DISCUSSION: Distal clavicle grafts were larger and restored larger bony defects but had greater variability and lower density than coracoid grafts. Clinical studies are needed to compare these graft options.
Authors: Guillaume D Dumont; Bryan G Vopat; Stephen Parada; Randy Cohn; Amun Makani; George Sanchez; Petar Golijanin; Brendin R Beaulieu-Jones; Anthony Sanchez; Matthew T Provencher Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Ruth A Delaney; Michael T Freehill; David R Janfaza; Kamen V Vlassakov; Laurence D Higgins; Jon J P Warner Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Joshua W Giles; Harm W Boons; Ilia Elkinson; Kenneth J Faber; Louis M Ferreira; James A Johnson; George S Athwal Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 3.019