Biomechanics of a new technique for minimal-invasive coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction

Biomechanical Characterization of a New Locking Loop Stitch for Graft Fixation versus Krackow Stitch

Background

The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the biomechanical characteristics of a new locking loop stitch (LLS), developed utilizing the concepts of both running locking stitch and needleless stitch, to the traditional Krackow stitch.

Methods

The Krackow stitch with No.2 braided suture and the LLS with 1.3-mm augmented polyblend suture tape were compared biomechanically. The LLS was performed with single strand locking loops and wrapping suture around the tendon, resulting in half the needle penetrations through the graft compared to the Krackow stitch. Twenty bovine extensor tendons were divided randomly into two groups. The tendons were prepared to match equal thickness and cross-sectional area. Each suture-tendon was stitched and preloaded to 5 N for 60 seconds, cyclically loaded to 20 N, 40 N, and 60 N for 10 cycles each, and then loaded to failure. The deformation of the suture-tendon construct, stiffness, yield load, and ultimate load were measured.

Results

The LLS had significantly less deformation of the suture-tendon construct at 100 N, 200 N, 300 N, and at ultimate load compared to the Krackow stitch (Krackow stitch and LLS at 100 N: 1.3 ± 0.1 mm and 1.0 ± 0.2 mm, p < 0.001; 200 N: 3.0 ± 0.3 mm and 1.9 ± 0.2 mm, p < 0.001; 300 N: 5.1 ± 0.6 mm and 2.9 ± 0.4 mm, p < 0.001; ultimate load: 12.8 ± 2.8 mm and 5.0 ± 1.2 mm, p < 0.001). The LLS had significantly greater stiffness (Krackow stitch and LLS: 97.5 ± 6.9 N/mm and 117.2 ± 13.9 N/mm, p < 0.001) and yield load (Krackow stitch and LLS: 66.2 ± 15.9 N and 237.9 ± 93.6 N, p < 0.001) compared to the Krackow stitch. There was no significant difference in ultimate load (Krackow stitch: 450.2 ± 49.4 N; LLS: 472.6 ± 59.8 N; p = 0.290).

Conclusions

The LLS had significantly smaller deformation of the suture-tendon construct compared to the Krackow stitch. The LLS may be a viable surgical alternative to the Krackow stitch for graft fixation when secure fixation is necessary.

Current concepts in acromioclavicular joint (AC) instability - a proposed treatment algorithm for acute and chronic AC-joint surgery

BACKGROUND

There exists a vast number of surgical treatment options for acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries, and the current literature has yet to determine an equivocally superior treatment. AC joint repair has a long history and dates back to the beginning of the twentieth century.

MAIN BODY

Since then, over 150 different techniques have been described, covering open and closed techniques. Low grade injuries such as Type I-II according to the modified Rockwood classification should be treated conservatively, while high-grade injuries (types IV-VI) may be indicated for operative treatment. However, controversy exists if operative treatment is superior to nonoperative treatment, especially in grade III injuries, as functional impairment due to scapular dyskinesia or chronic pain remains concerning following non-operative treatment. Patients with a stable AC joint without overriding of the clavicle and without significant scapular dysfunction (Type IIIA) may benefit from non-interventional approaches, in contrast to patients with overriding of the clavicle and therapy-resistant scapular dysfunction (Type IIIB). If these patients are considered non-responders to a conservative approach, an anatomic AC joint reconstruction using a hybrid technique should be considered. In chronic AC joint injuries, surgery is indicated after failed nonoperative treatment of 3 to 6 months. Anatomic AC joint reconstruction techniques along with biologic augmentation (e.g. Hybrid techniques, suture fixation) should be considered for chronic high-grade instabilities, accounting for the lack of intrinsic healing and scar-forming potential of the ligamentous tissue in the chronic setting. However, complication and clinical failure rates remain high, which may be a result of technical failures or persistent horizontal and rotational instability.

CONCLUSION

Future research should focus on addressing horizontal and rotational instability, to restore native physiological and biomechanical properties of the AC joint.

Combination of Surgical Techniques Restores Multidirectional Biomechanical Stability of Acromioclavicular Joint

PURPOSE

To measure the multiaxial stability of the acromioclavicular joint before and after transection of the acromioclavicular capsule and coracoclavicular ligaments and after sequential repair of acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments.

METHODS

Biomechanical testing was performed on fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders (N = 6). Translational and rotational stability in the vertical and horizontal planes was measured in intact specimens, after transecting the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments, and after sequentially performing the following procedures: single-bundle coracoclavicular repair (CCR), modified Weaver-Dunn procedure (WD), and acromioclavicular stabilization (ACS).

RESULTS

Resecting the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular significantly reduced translational stiffness in the inferior and anteroposterior directions, as well as rotational stiffness about the vertical and anteroposterior axes. All 3 surgical procedures increased inferior translational stiffness relative to the intact condition (Intact: 38 ± 9 N/mm, CCR: 54 ± 23 N/mm (P = .03), CCR+WD 52 ± 20 N/mm (P = .07), CCR ± WD+ACS 50 ± 21 N/mm (P = .17)). However, the combination of CCR, modified WD, and ACS resulted in the greatest increase in stiffness in internal rotation (Intact: 12.5 ± 7.4 cNm/deg, CCR: 1.2 ± 1.1 cNm/deg, CCR+WD 7.2 ± 3.0 N∗m/deg [P = .023], CCR+WD+ACS 11.6 ± 4.9 cNm/deg [P = .055]).

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative stability of CCR, WD reconstruction, and ACS appears to be additive. Our findings provide a biomechanical justification for combining all three techniques. Biomechanical studies assessing the performance of various acromioclavicular repairs and reconstructions should therefore incorporate multiaxial testing in their protocols.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Multiple points of fixation that provide multidirectional stability have the potential to improve clinical outcomes and reduce failure rates of acromioclavicular joint repair or stabilization.

Sagittal orientation of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction affects the stability of surgical repair

BACKGROUND

The variation in the anatomic relationship between the coracoid and the clavicle affects the biomechanical stability of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction (CCLR).

METHODS

Three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction of 85 patients was analyzed. Anatomic landmarks were used to derive the coracoclavicular sagittal reconstruction angle (sRA). The lateral concave angle, which indicated the shape of the distal clavicle, and the offsets between the clavicle and coracoid were also measured. To investigate the biomechanical effects of the sRA on CCLR, 7 computed tomography scans with different sRAs were 3D printed. Two reconstructions, a single trans-coracoclavicular tunnel and a looped reconstruction technique, were performed sequentially. Models were cyclically loaded at 70 N in the anterior, posterior, and superior directions.

RESULTS

The mean sRA was 68° ± 9.3° (range, 47°-85°). The superoinferior offset between the clavicle and the coracoid and the lateral concave angle positively correlated with the sRA (r = 0.359 and 0.837, respectively; P ≤ .001), whereas the anteroposterior offset had a negative correlation (r = -0.925; P < .001). The sRA had a negative correlation with the anterior displacement of the clavicle (rho = -0.96; P < .001) and a positive correlation with the posterior displacement for both surgical techniques (rho = 1.0; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The anatomic orientation of the native coracoclavicular ligaments is highly variable in the sagittal plane. Low sagittal angles can reduce anterior stability, whereas high sagittal angles can reduce posterior stability of CCLR.

Acromioclavicular Joint Stabilization: A Biomechanical Study of Bidirectional Stability and Strength

Background:

It is important to restore horizontal and vertical stability to the acromioclavicular (AC) joint when treating dislocations of this joint. Most surgical stabilization techniques of the AC joint have primarily addressed the coracoclavicular ligament complex; however, these techniques may not satisfactorily restore horizontal stability to the AC joint.

Purpose:

To evaluate the strength and bidirectional stability of 3 AC joint stabilizing techniques in a cadaveric model.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

A total of 24 cadaveric shoulders were randomly allocated to 3 treatment groups. For each group, a standardized AC joint stabilizing procedure was performed, and the specimens were potted for mechanical testing. The following reconstruction techniques were used: a single clavicular tunnel for group A, a double clavicular tunnel for group B, and a double clavicular tunnel plus suture fixation across the AC joint for group C. The specimens underwent cyclic loading in the horizontal and vertical planes and then load to failure. Eight control specimens also underwent cyclic loading in both planes. Construct stiffness during cyclic loading, change in displacement after cyclic loading in both planes, load to failure in the vertical plane, and mode of failure were evaluated, and stiffness was compared among the treatment groups as well as with a control group.

Results:

There was a decrease in joint stiffness for all groups, including controls, during the cyclic loading. Compared with controls, all 3 treatment groups demonstrated equivalent stiffness and displacement in the vertical plane. In the horizontal plane, all 3 treatment groups demonstrated decreased stiffness, increased displacement, or both when compared with controls. When groups were compared, no treatment arm proved superior regarding stiffness or displacement in either plane. Load-to-failure testing of the 3 treatment groups in the vertical plane demonstrated construct strength and stiffness comparable with reports for the native AC joint. The mode of failure was predominantly fracture at the point of fixation to the testing apparatus.

Conclusion:

There was no difference in bidirectional strength and stability between the single– and double–clavicular tunnel techniques of coracoclavicular reconstruction. The addition of a stabilizing suture across the AC joint does not improve horizontal stability in the absence of repair of the AC joint capsule and deltotrapezial fascia.

Clinical Relevance:

This laboratory study provides further evidence of the importance of the AC joint capsule and associated soft tissues in affording horizontal stability to that joint. Information from this and subsequent studies utilizing a bidirectional model can influence the choice of surgical procedure in the clinical treatment of AC joint dislocations.

Acromioclavicular joint dislocations: coracoclavicular reconstruction with and without additional direct acromioclavicular repair

PURPOSE

To evaluate different stabilisation techniques for acromioclavicular (AC) joint separations, including direct AC repair, and to compare the properties of the stabilised and native joints.

METHODS

An established in vitro testing model for the AC joint was used to analyse joint stability after surgical reconstruction [double TightRope (DTR), DTR with AC repair (DTR + AC), single TR with AC repair (TR + AC), and PDS sling with AC repair (PDS + AC)]. Twenty-four human cadaveric shoulders were randomised by age into four testing groups. Joint stiffness was measured by applying an axial load during defined physiological ranges of motion. Similar tests were performed for the native joints, after dissecting the coracoclavicular and AC ligaments, and after surgical reconstruction. Cyclic loading was performed for 1000 cycles with 20-70 N and vertical load to failure determined after cyclic testing.

RESULTS

Axial stiffness for all TR groups was significantly higher than for the native joint (DTR 38.94 N/mm, p = 0.005; DTR + AC 37.79 N/mm, p = 0.015; TR + AC 45.61 N/mm, p < 0.001 vs. native 26.05 N/mm). The axial stiffness of the PDS + AC group was similar to that of the native joint group (21.4 N/mm, n.s.). AC repair did not significantly influence rotational stiffness. Load to failure was similar and >600 N in all groups (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Reconstruction of AC dislocations with one or two TRs leads to stable results with a higher stiffness than the native joints. For the PDS + AC group, axial stiffness was similar to the native situation, although there might be a risk of elongation. Direct AC repair showed no significantly increased stability in comparison with reconstructions without direct AC repair. Thus, a direct AC repair seems to be dispensable in clinical practice, while TRs or PDS cerclages appear to provide sufficiently stable results.

Evaluation of biomechanical properties: are porcine flexor tendons and bovine extensor tendons eligible surrogates for human tendons in in vitro studies?

INTRODUCTION

Porcine flexor tendons, bovine extensor tendons, and human (semitendinosus) tendons are frequently used as substitutes for human ACL grafts in biomechanical in vitro studies. This study compares the biomechanical properties and structural differences of these tendons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this biomechanical study, fresh-frozen porcine flexor tendons, bovine extensor tendons, and human semitendinosus tendons were used (n = 36). The tendons were mounted in a uniaxial testing machine (Zwick/Roell) with cryo-clamps, leaving a 60 mm tendon part free between the two clamps. Specimens have been loaded to failure to evaluate the biomechanical parameters stiffness, yield load, and maximum load. A Total Collagen Assay Kit was used to detect differences in the total collagen type I concentration (n = 30). A one-way ANOVA was performed to detect differences in the means. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the stiffness between the groups (bovine 194 ± 43 N/mm, porcine 211 ± 63 N/mm, and human cadaveric 208 ± 58 N/mm). The yield and maximum loads were high (>1000 N) in all groups, but they were significantly increased in both animal specimens (means of 1681-1795 N) compared with human cadaveric specimen (means of 1289-1406 N; p < 0.01). No difference in the collagen type I concentration was detected (N.S.).

CONCLUSION

Porcine flexor and bovine extensor tendons are eligible substitutes with similar stiffness and high failure loads compared with human cadaveric semitendinosus tendons in in vitro studies.

A biomechanical assessment of a novel double endobutton technique versus a coracoid cerclage sling for acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular injuries

PURPOSE

Recently, many acromioclavicular-coracoclavicular (AC-CC) ligament reconstruction techniques address only the CC ligament. However, many of these techniques are costly, time-consuming, and require the use of allogenic grafts, making them prone to creep and failure or novel devices making them challenging for orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical characteristics of a double endobutton technique using a standard endobutton CL with those of a coracoid cerclage sling (CS) for reconstruction of the CC ligaments.

METHODS

Anterior-posterior (AP) translation and superior-inferior (SI) translation were quantified for eight matched pairs of intact AC joints. One shoulder from each pair underwent a double endobutton repair, using an endobutton CL modified with an additional endobutton (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, Tenn) and placed through holes in the coracoid and clavicle. The contra-lateral shoulder received a coracoid sling reconstruction using an anterior tibialis tendon. Translation testing was repeated after reconstruction, followed by load-to-failure testing. Paired t tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The CS technique demonstrated a greater SI and AP translation than the double endobutton technique (p < 0.05). Additionally, the double endobutton technique had a greater stiffness (40.2 ± 11.0 vs. 20.3 ± 6.4 N/mm, p = 0.005), yield load (168.5 ± 11.0 vs. 86.8 ± 22.9 N, p = 0.002), and ultimate load (504.4 ± 199.7 vs. 213.2 ± 103.4 N, p = 0.026) when compared to the CS technique.

CONCLUSION

The double endobutton technique yielded less translation about the AC joint and displayed stronger load-to-failure characteristics than the CS reconstruction. As such, this technique may be better suited to restore native AC-CC biomechanics, reduce post-operative pain, and prevent recurrent subluxation and dislocation than an allogenic graft construct. The double endobutton technique may be a suitable option for addressing AC-CC injuries.