Distal clavicle autograft for anterior-inferior glenoid augmentation: A comparative cadaveric anatomic study.
basic_science · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 33281945.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1177/1758573219869335 and PMC identifier 7689607.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to anatomically compare distal clavicle and coracoid autografts and their potential to augment anterior-inferior glenoid bone loss. 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. 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 cm<sup>3</sup> versus 1.96 cm<sup>3</sup>; p = 0.002). Coracoid grafts had larger widths (14.56 mm versus 10.52 mm; p < 0.001) and greater density (1.24 g/cm<sup>3</sup> versus 1.18 g/cm<sup>3</sup>; p < 0.001). Distal clavicle surface area was greater on both the articular (2.93 cm<sup>2</sup> versus 1.5 cm<sup>2</sup>; p < 0.001) and superior surfaces (2.76 cm<sup>2</sup> versus 1.5 cm<sup>2</sup>; p < 0.001) when compared to lateral coracoid surface area. 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.
Anatomy
- clavicle