Biomechanical comparison of coracoclavicular reconstructive techniques.

Abstract

Acromioclavicular joint dislocations are common orthopaedic injuries. Numerous operative techniques have been described, but the gold standard has yet to be defined. The goal of fixation is to create a stiff and strong reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments to provide optimal stability. The modified Weaver-Dunn is the traditional surgical procedure. However, due to the high rate of recurrent instability with this technique, a shift toward a more anatomic repair has occurred. To evaluate the biomechanical performance of multiple types of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction. Controlled laboratory study. Thirty fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were assigned to 1 of 5 reconstruction groups or a control group: modified Weaver-Dunn, nonanatomic allograft, anatomic allograft, anatomic suture, and GraftRope. A type III acromioclavicular joint dislocation was simulated in all specimens. The 5 techniques were completed, and a cyclic preload and a load-to-failure protocol were performed. The control had an average load to failure of 1330.6 ± 447.0 N. Compared with all techniques, the anatomic allograft had the highest load to failure, 948 ± 148 N. It had a significantly higher load to failure than the modified Weaver-Dunn (523.2 ± 98.6 N, P = .001), the anatomic suture (578.2 ± 195.3 N, P = .01), the nonanatomic allograft (591.2 ± 65.6 N, P = .003), and the GraftRope (646 ± 167.4, P = .016). No significant difference in load to failure was found between the remaining techniques. The anatomic allograft reconstruction has superior initial biomechanical properties compared with the modified Weaver-Dunn, nonanatomic allograft, anatomic suture, and GraftRope techniques. Anatomic reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligaments with allograft may provide a stronger biological solution for acromioclavicular joint dislocations. This reconstruction may minimize recurrent subluxation and pain and permit earlier rehabilitation when compared with current techniques.