We have located links that may give you full text access.
Acromioclavicular joint stabilization with a double cow-hitch technique compared to a double tight-rope: a biomechanical study.
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2021 January 22
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present biomechanical study was to evaluate the stability of a novel simple and cost-effective mini-open double cow-hitch suture button technique of acromioclavicular (AC) joint stabilization in comparison to a well-established double tight-rope technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were randomized into two treatment groups. In either a coracoclavicular stabilization with a standard double tight-rope technique (Group 1; n = 6, age 78 years ± 10) or a double cow-hitch with two No. 5 FiberWire strains looped in a bicortical button placed at the bottom of the coracoid process (Group 2; n = 6, age 80 years ± 13). Both techniques were equally augmented with an AC joint cerclage using a FiberTape. All shoulders were tested in a servo-hydraulic material testing machine for elongation/cyclic displacement (in mm) after cyclic loading (70 N cyclical load, 1500 cycles), stiffness (N/mm) and ultimate load to failure (N). The mechanism of failure was recorded. All tests were performed in a previously published testing setup.
RESULTS: After 1500 cycles, group 2 showed a cyclic displacement of 1.67 mm (SD 0.85), compared to 1.04 mm (SD 0.23) cyclic displacement in group 1 (p = 0.11). The cyclic displacement after AC reconstruction in group 1 was 0.36 mm lower than in the native state with intact ligaments (p = 0.19), whereas the cyclic elongation in group 2 was 0.05 mm higher compared to the native situation (p = 0.87). Stiffness after reconstruction was significantly higher in group 1 compared to the native specimen (p = 0.001), in group 2 it was similar as before the reconstruction (p = 0.64). Ultimate load to failure and stiffness were higher in group 1 with 424 N (SD 237) and 68.6 N/mm (SD 8.2), compared to 377 N (SD 152) and 68 N/mm (SD 13.3) in group 2, without reaching statistical significance (p = 0.69 and 0.89). The most common failure modes were clavicular fractures at the tight rope drill holes (n = 2) and clavicular fractures medially at the fixation site (n = 2) in group 1, and coracoid button break-through (n = 3) and clavicular fractures medially at the fixation site (n = 2) in group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Stabilization of the AC joint with a novel mini-open double cow-hitch suture button technique resulted in a similar low elongation, high stiffness and ultimate load to failure compared to a double tight-rope technique. This cost-effective technique for AC joint stabilization could demonstrate a sufficient biomechanical stability with especially high stiffness and load-to-failure.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Biomechanical study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were randomized into two treatment groups. In either a coracoclavicular stabilization with a standard double tight-rope technique (Group 1; n = 6, age 78 years ± 10) or a double cow-hitch with two No. 5 FiberWire strains looped in a bicortical button placed at the bottom of the coracoid process (Group 2; n = 6, age 80 years ± 13). Both techniques were equally augmented with an AC joint cerclage using a FiberTape. All shoulders were tested in a servo-hydraulic material testing machine for elongation/cyclic displacement (in mm) after cyclic loading (70 N cyclical load, 1500 cycles), stiffness (N/mm) and ultimate load to failure (N). The mechanism of failure was recorded. All tests were performed in a previously published testing setup.
RESULTS: After 1500 cycles, group 2 showed a cyclic displacement of 1.67 mm (SD 0.85), compared to 1.04 mm (SD 0.23) cyclic displacement in group 1 (p = 0.11). The cyclic displacement after AC reconstruction in group 1 was 0.36 mm lower than in the native state with intact ligaments (p = 0.19), whereas the cyclic elongation in group 2 was 0.05 mm higher compared to the native situation (p = 0.87). Stiffness after reconstruction was significantly higher in group 1 compared to the native specimen (p = 0.001), in group 2 it was similar as before the reconstruction (p = 0.64). Ultimate load to failure and stiffness were higher in group 1 with 424 N (SD 237) and 68.6 N/mm (SD 8.2), compared to 377 N (SD 152) and 68 N/mm (SD 13.3) in group 2, without reaching statistical significance (p = 0.69 and 0.89). The most common failure modes were clavicular fractures at the tight rope drill holes (n = 2) and clavicular fractures medially at the fixation site (n = 2) in group 1, and coracoid button break-through (n = 3) and clavicular fractures medially at the fixation site (n = 2) in group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Stabilization of the AC joint with a novel mini-open double cow-hitch suture button technique resulted in a similar low elongation, high stiffness and ultimate load to failure compared to a double tight-rope technique. This cost-effective technique for AC joint stabilization could demonstrate a sufficient biomechanical stability with especially high stiffness and load-to-failure.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Biomechanical study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app