Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.; Shiley Center for Orthopaedic Research & Education (SCORE), Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California, U.S.A..
Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.; Shiley Center for Orthopaedic Research & Education (SCORE), Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.
Arthroscopy. 2020 May;36(5):1264-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.01.033. Epub 2020 Feb 5.
To compare the biomechanical stability of 3 different coracoclavicular reconstruction techniques under rotational and vertical loading using a cadaveric model.
In total, 12 cadaveric shoulders were used for testing. The native state was first tested then followed by 3 different reconstruction configurations using suture tapes and cortical buttons: coracoid loop (CL), single-bundle (SB), and double-bundle (DB). Superior displacement was measured by cycling an inferiorly directed force of 70 N to the scapula. The rotational stiffness of the scapula was determined by cycling the scapula in rotational displacement control between 15° of internal and external rotation. The rotational stiffness of the clavicle was determined by rotating the clavicle around its long axis 20° anteriorly and 30° posteriorly in rotational displacement control. All measurements were captured over 10 cycles at a rate of 200 Hz.
Both the CL and SB techniques demonstrated significantly less internal scapular rotation stiffness. (intact: 19.70 ± 9.07 cNm/deg, CL: 3.70 ± 2.63 cNm/deg, SB:4.30 ± 2.66 cNm/deg, P <.001) External scapular rotation stiffness was significantly decreased in all techniques (intact: 17.70 ± 4.43 cNm/deg, CL: 3.30 ± 1.37 cNm/deg, SB: 4.50 ± 1.56 cNm/deg, DB: 4.67 ± 1.99 cNm/deg, P < .001). The CL and SB reconstructions were significantly less stiff with regards to posterior rotation of the clavicle (intact: 5.60 ± 1.80 cNm/deg, CL: 2.90 ± 1.10 cNm/deg, SB: 1.40 ± 0.65 cNm/deg, P < .001). Anterior rotation stiffness of the clavicle was significantly lower in all of the reconstructions (intact: 6.95 ± 1.90 cNm/deg, CL: 3.08 ± 0.84 cNm/deg, SB: 3.64 ± 0.93 cNm/deg, DB: 4.48 ± 1.21 cNm/deg, P < .001).
None of the described techniques provided equivalent rotational stability in all planes compared with the native state. DB reconstruction presented stiffness characteristics closest to the native state under cyclic loading during internal scapular and posterior clavicular rotation.
Additional procedures such as tendon grafting or acromioclavicular ligament reconstruction may be required to control rotational stability.
使用尸体模型比较 3 种不同喙锁重建技术在旋转和垂直加载下的生物力学稳定性。
共使用 12 个尸体肩部进行测试。首先测试自然状态,然后使用缝线带和皮质纽扣进行 3 种不同的重建配置:喙突环(CL)、单束(SB)和双束(DB)。通过向肩胛骨施加 70 N 的向下力来测量上方位移。通过在 15°内旋和外旋之间的旋转位移控制下循环肩胛骨来确定肩胛骨的旋转刚度。通过在旋转位移控制下将锁骨绕其长轴向前旋转 20°和向后旋转 30°来确定锁骨的旋转刚度。所有测量均在 200 Hz 的速率下进行 10 个循环。
CL 和 SB 技术均显示出明显较低的内部肩胛骨旋转刚度。(完整:19.70 ± 9.07 cNm/deg,CL:3.70 ± 2.63 cNm/deg,SB:4.30 ± 2.66 cNm/deg,P <.001)所有技术的外部肩胛骨旋转刚度均显著降低(完整:17.70 ± 4.43 cNm/deg,CL:3.30 ± 1.37 cNm/deg,SB:4.50 ± 1.56 cNm/deg,DB:4.67 ± 1.99 cNm/deg,P <.001)。CL 和 SB 重建对于锁骨的后旋转明显刚度较低(完整:5.60 ± 1.80 cNm/deg,CL:2.90 ± 1.10 cNm/deg,SB:1.40 ± 0.65 cNm/deg,P <.001)。所有重建的锁骨前旋转刚度均明显降低(完整:6.95 ± 1.90 cNm/deg,CL:3.08 ± 0.84 cNm/deg,SB:3.64 ± 0.93 cNm/deg,DB:4.48 ± 1.21 cNm/deg,P <.001)。
与自然状态相比,没有一种描述的技术在所有平面上都能提供等效的旋转稳定性。DB 重建在内部肩胛骨和后部锁骨旋转的循环加载下,具有最接近自然状态的刚度特性。
可能需要额外的程序,如肌腱移植或肩锁韧带重建,以控制旋转稳定性。