Rotational and Translational Stability of Different Methods for Direct Acromioclavicular Ligament Repair in Anatomic Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction. (September 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Beitzel, Knut; Obopilwe, Elifho; Apostolakos, John; Cote, Mark P.; Russell, Ryan P.; Charette, Ryan; Singh, Hardeep; Arciero, Robert A.; Imhoff, Andreas B.; Mazzocca, Augustus D.
• Is Part Of: American journal of sports medicine. Volume 42:Number 9(2014:Sep.)
• Page Start: 2141
• Page End: 2148
• Publication Date: 2014-09
• Subjects: acromioclavicular (AC) joint -- AC joint dislocation -- anatomic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction -- AC separation -- coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.102705
• DOI: 10.1177/0363546514538947
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0363-5465

Abstract

Background: Many reconstructions of acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations have focused on the coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments and neglected the functional contribution of the AC ligaments and the deltotrapezial fascia. Purpose: To compare the modifications of previously published methods for direct AC reconstruction in addition to a CC reconstruction. The hypothesis was that there would be significant differences within the variations of surgical reconstructions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 24 cadaveric shoulders were tested with a servohydraulic testing system. Two digitizing cameras evaluated the 3-dimensional movement. All reconstructions were based on a CC reconstruction using 2 clavicle tunnels and a tendon graft. The following techniques were used to reconstruct the AC ligaments: a graft was shuttled underneath the AC joint back from anterior and again sutured to the acromial side of the joint (group 1), a graft was fixed intramedullary in the acromion and distal clavicle (group 2), a graft was passed over the acromion and into an acromial tunnel (group 3), and a FiberTape was fixed in a cruciate configuration (group 4). Anterior, posterior, and superior translation, as well as anterior and posterior rotation, were tested. Results: Group 1 showed significantly less posterior translation compared with the 3 other groups ( P < .05) but did not show significant differences compared with the native joint. Groups 3 and 4 demonstrated significantly more posterior translation than the native joint. Group 1 showed significantly less anterior translation compared with groups 2 and 3. Group 3 demonstrated significantly more anterior translation than the native joint. Group 1 demonstrated significantly less superior translation compared with the other groups and with the native joint. The AC joint of group 1 was pulled apart less compared with all other reconstructions. Only group 1 reproduced the native joint for the anterior rotation at the posterior marker. Group 4 showed significantly increased distances for all 3 measure points when the clavicle was rotated posteriorly. Conclusion: Reconstruction of the AC ligament by direct wrapping and suturing of the remaining graft around the AC joint (group 1) was the most stable method and was the only one to show anterior rotation comparable with the native joint. In contrast, the transacromial technique (group 3) showed the most translation and rotation. Clinical Relevance: An anatomic repair should address both the CC ligaments and the AC ligaments to control the optimal physiologic function (translation and rotation).