| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
|
|
|||||||
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
|||||||||
From the dagger; Department of Orthopaedics, Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, the Division of Orthopaedic Engineering Research, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, and || Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
* Address correspondence to Ashwin V. Deshmukh, MD, Department of Orthopaedics, Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center, 6041 Cadillac Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90034.
Background: Despite reports of excellent results with the Weaver-Dunn coracoacromial ligament transfer, many authors recommend augmenting the transfer with supplemental fixation. The authors of this study sought to determine whether there is a biomechanical basis for this assertion and which augmentative method, if any, most closely restored acromioclavicular motion to normal.
Hypothesis: Augmentative coracoclavicular fixation provides better restoration of normal acromioclavicular joint laxity and an increased failure load when compared with the Weaver-Dunn reconstruction alone.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory cadaveric study.
Methods: Native acromioclavicular joint motion was measured using an infrared optical measurement system. Acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments were then cut, and 1 of 6 reconstructions was performed: Weaver-Dunn, suture cerclage, and 4 different suture anchors. Acromioclavicular joint motion was reassessed, a cyclic loading test was performed, and the failure load was recorded.
Results: After Weaver-Dunn reconstruction, mean anteroposterior laxity increased from 8.8 ± 2.9 mm in the native state to 41.9 ± 7.6 mm (P 
.01), and mean superior laxity increased from 3.1 ± 1.5 mm to 13.6 ± 4.4 mm (P .01). Weaver-Dunn reconstructions failed at a lower load (177 ± 9 N) than all other reconstructions (range, 278–369 N) (P .05). Reconstruction using augmentative fixation allowed less acromioclavicular motion than Weaver-Dunn reconstruction (P .05) but more motion than the native ligaments (P .05). Specifically, mean superior laxity after reconstruction ranged between 6.5 and 9.0 mm compared with the native ligaments (3.1 ± 1.5 mm) and the Weaver-Dunn reconstructions (13.6 ± 4.4 mm). Mean anteroposterior laxity after the reconstructions tested ranged between 21.8 and 33.2 mm, compared with the native ligaments (8.8 ± 2.9 mm) and the Weaver-Dunn reconstructions (41.9 ± 7.6 mm).
Conclusion: Although none of the augmentative methods tested restored acromioclavicular stability to normal, all proved superior to the Weaver-Dunn reconstruction alone.
Clinical Relevance: This study suggests that when performing acromioclavicular reconstruction, supplemental fixation should be used because it provides more stability and pull-out strength than the Weaver-Dunn reconstruction alone.
Key Words: acromioclavicular • coracoclavicular • ligament • instability • suture anchor
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Tauber, K. Gordon, H. Koller, M. Fox, and H. Resch Semitendinosus Tendon Graft Versus a Modified Weaver-Dunn Procedure for Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction in Chronic Cases: A Prospective Comparative Study Am. J. Sports Med., January 1, 2009; 37(1): 181 - 190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Salzmann, J. Paul, G. H. Sandmann, A. B. Imhoff, and P. B. Schottle The Coracoidal Insertion of the Coracoclavicular Ligaments: An Anatomic Study Am. J. Sports Med., December 1, 2008; 36(12): 2392 - 2397. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. LaPrade, D. J. Wickum, C. J. Griffith, and P. M. Ludewig Kinematic Evaluation of the Modified Weaver-Dunn Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., November 1, 2008; 36(11): 2216 - 2221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. J. Lee, E. P. Keefer, M. P. McHugh, I. J. Kremenic, K. F. Orishimo, S. Ben-Avi, and S. J. Nicholas Cyclical Loading of Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstructions: A Comparative Biomechanical Study Am. J. Sports Med., October 1, 2008; 36(10): 1990 - 1997. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Fraser-Moodie, N. L. Shortt, and C. M. Robinson Injuries to the acromioclavicular joint J Bone Joint Surg Br, June 1, 2008; 90-B(6): 697 - 707. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. D. Mazzocca, R. A. Arciero, and J. Bicos Evaluation and Treatment of Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries Am. J. Sports Med., February 1, 2007; 35(2): 316 - 329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Dimakopoulos, A. Panagopoulos, S. A. Syggelos, E. Panagiotopoulos, and E. Lambiris Double-Loop Suture Repair for Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Disruption Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 2006; 34(7): 1112 - 1119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. W. Grutter and S. A. Petersen Anatomical Acromioclavicular Ligament Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Comparison of Reconstructive Techniques of the Acromioclavicular Joint Am. J. Sports Med., November 1, 2005; 33(11): 1723 - 1728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
