Staron Jeffrey S, Esquivel Amanda O, Pandhi Nikhil G, Hanna Jason D, Lemos Stephen E
Orthopedics. 2013 Aug;36(8):e1047-52. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20130724-22.
Methods to reconstruct the coracoclavicular ligaments anatomically have been described. No clear advantage of 1 technique has been elucidated. The authors' hypothesis was that the biomechanical properties of a modified knot fixation technique would be similar to the anatomical double-bundle technique. Sixteen matched cadaveric shoulders were used for this study, and 1 additional shoulder was used in the knot fixation group only. Shoulders were randomly assigned to the anatomical double-bundle coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction technique (n=8) or a knot fixation technique (n=9). The intact coracoclavicular ligaments were tested to failure with superior displacement at a rate of 2 mm/s. Reconstruction was performed using a semitendinosus tendon allograft, and load to failure was repeated for each construct. Ultimate failure load, stiffness, and failure mode were compared using a paired t test (P<.05). No significant difference existed in load to failure between native and reconstructed ligaments or between reconstruction techniques. Stiffness decreased significantly after reconstruction in the double-bundle group (from 32.5 to 22.5 N/mm; P=.035) and in the modified knot fixation group (from 35.5 to 21.9 N/mm; P=.043). No significant difference existed in stiffness between the 2 reconstruction groups. A significant difference (P=.003) existed between failure modes between the 2 reconstruction techniques. Although less stiff than the native ligament, either technique used to reconstruct the coracoclavicular ligament can be performed to yield a load to failure similar to the intact ligament. The majority of failures in the double-bundle group were by means of the graft slipping at the screw-tendon interface at 1 of the clavicular drill holes. The modified knot fixation technique failed the majority of the time by graft elongation.
已有描述解剖重建喙锁韧带的方法。尚未阐明一种技术的明显优势。作者的假设是改良结固定技术的生物力学特性将与解剖双束技术相似。本研究使用了16对匹配的尸体肩部,结固定组仅额外使用了1个肩部。肩部被随机分配到解剖双束喙锁韧带重建技术组(n = 8)或结固定技术组(n = 9)。对完整的喙锁韧带以2 mm/s的速度进行上移直至破坏测试。使用半腱肌肌腱同种异体移植物进行重建,并对每个结构重复破坏负荷测试。使用配对t检验比较极限破坏负荷、刚度和破坏模式(P <.05)。天然韧带与重建韧带之间或重建技术之间的破坏负荷无显著差异。双束组重建后刚度显著降低(从32.5降至22.5 N/mm;P =.035),改良结固定组也显著降低(从35.5降至21.9 N/mm;P =.043)。两个重建组之间的刚度无显著差异。两种重建技术的破坏模式之间存在显著差异(P =.003)。尽管比天然韧带的刚度小,但用于重建喙锁韧带的任何一种技术都可以实现与完整韧带相似的破坏负荷。双束组的大多数破坏是由于移植物在锁骨钻孔之一处的螺钉-肌腱界面处滑动。改良结固定技术大多因移植物伸长而失败。