Biomechanical Comparison of Anatomical and Vertical Reconstruction for Coracoclavicular Ligament
10.16156/j.1004-7220.2018.04.09
- VernacularTitle:喙锁韧带解剖重建与垂直重建的生物力学对比
- Author:
Zhaoxun PAN
1
;
Dekai DU
2
;
Chao SUN
3
;
Xiaojun MIN
4
;
Xiaoming YANG
5
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopedics, the 89th Hospital of PLA
2. Department of Orthopedics, the 90th Hospital of PLA
3. Department of Orthopedics, the 91th Hospital of PLA
4. Department of Orthopedics, the 92th Hospital of PLA
5. Department of Orthopedics, the 93th Hospital of PLA
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
coracoclavicular ligament;
vertical reconstruction;
anatomical reconstruction;
biomechanics
- From:
Journal of Medical Biomechanics
2018;33(4):E343-E347
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To conduct a comparative study of the biomechanical characteristics of anatomical and vertical reconstruction for the coracoclavicular ligament. Methods Thirty fresh adult cadaveric specimens of the shoulder joint were dissected, whereas other soft tissues of the shoulder joint were resected, and only the clavicle-coracoclavicular ligament-scapula structures were retained. All the specimens were randomly divided into three groups, with ten specimens in each group. In Group 1, the coracoclavicular ligament was retained; in Group 2, the cone ligament was reconstructed vertically based on the classical Steven technique; and in Group 3, the conical ligament was reconstructed anatomically based on the central site of the original ligament. Biomechanical tests under vertical tensile resistances were conducted separately on the three groups, and the tensile forces that caused the rupture of the coracoclavicular ligament or reconstruction failure were recorded. Results In Group 1, clavicle and coracoid fractures were not found, and the tensile force that caused the coracoclavicular ligament rupture was (650.41 + 35.88) N. In Group 2, clavicle fracture (two cases), endobutton pull-out from the clavicle (two cases) or coracoid (five cases), and coracoid fracture (one case) occurred, and the tensile force that caused the failure of the coracoclavicular reconstruction was (725.68 + 35.37) N. In Group 3, clavicle fracture (three cases ), endobutton pull-out from the clavicle (one case) or coracoid (five cases), and coracoid fracture (one case) occurred, and the tensile force that caused the failure of the coracoclavicular reconstruction was (765.15+13.68) N. Conclusions The tensile forces in the anatomical and vertical reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligament were both superior to those of the primary ligament, with the anatomical reconstruction being superior to vertical reconstruction under a tensile effect.
