Semitendinosus vs Gracilis Grafts With 1- vs 2-Tunnel Techniques for Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Study

Background: Despite the evolution of acromioclavicular joint surgery to a more anatomic coracoclavicular (CC) ligament reconstruction, no definitive guidance regarding the number and position of bone tunnels in the clavicle, as well as the ideal graft choice, is established. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare the reconstruction of the CC ligament complex between gracilis- and semitendinosus-tendon grafts in 1- and 2-tunnel techniques. It was hypothesized that the gracilis tendon graft will provide comparable primary stability in both tunnel techniques while utilizing a smaller tunnel diameter. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 24 cadaveric shoulders (13 men, 11 women; 66 ± 7.5 years) were randomly allocated to 4 repair groups: gracilis with 1 tunnel (GT-1), gracilis with 2 tunnels (GT-2), semitendinosus with 1 tunnel (ST-1), and semitendinosus with 2 tunnels (ST-2). First, specimens were tested for native anterior, posterior, and superior translations. Then, specimens were randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 CC reconstruction groups before undergoing the same testing, followed by cyclic loading and load to failure (LTF). Results: The GT-2 reconstruction demonstrated significantly less translation when compared with ST-2 in anterior (P = .024) and posterior (P = .048) directions. GT-1 and ST-2 both showed significantly less translation than ST-1 in anterior and superior directions (P < .001). All reconstructions demonstrated less superior translation compared with native testing, with GT-1 and ST-2 significantly less than ST-1 (P < .001). There were no significant differences for peak displacement and LTF between groups. Conclusion: Gracilis tendon grafts using a 1- or 2-tunnel technique for CC ligament reconstruction provided comparable translation, displacement, and LTF as corresponding semitendinosus grafts. Therefore, the gracilis tendon should be considered as a biomechanical equivalent graft choice for the reconstruction of the CC ligament complex. Clinical Relevance: In a cadaveric model, the gracilis tendon demonstrated adequate fixation with minimal translation in CC ligament reconstruction while utilizing smaller diameter bone tunnels, which may help minimize the risk of complications such as loss of reduction and fracture.

[1]  N. Choi,et al.  Loss of reduction and complications of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction with autogenous tendon graft in acute acromioclavicular dislocations. , 2017, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[2]  H. Safwat,et al.  Modified Weaver-Dunn Procedure Versus The Use of Semitendinosus Autogenous Tendon Graft for Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction , 2016, The open orthopaedics journal.

[3]  M. McGarry,et al.  Biomechanical Comparison of Fracture Risk Created by 2 Different Clavicle Tunnel Preparations for Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction , 2014, Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine.

[4]  Wei Chen,et al.  Comparison of single and two-tunnel techniques during open treatment of acromioclavicular joint disruption , 2014, BMC Surgery.

[5]  Ryan P. Russell,et al.  Rotational and Translational Stability of Different Methods for Direct Acromioclavicular Ligament Repair in Anatomic Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[6]  P. Millett,et al.  Biomechanical Consequences of Coracoclavicular Reconstruction Techniques on Clavicle Strength , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[7]  William A. Pierce,et al.  Impact of tunnels and tenodesis screws on clavicle fracture: a biomechanical study of varying coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction techniques. , 2013, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[8]  P. Millett,et al.  Complications After Anatomic Fixation and Reconstruction of the Coracoclavicular Ligaments , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[9]  R. Arciero,et al.  Graft fixation is highest with anatomic tunnel positioning in acromioclavicular reconstruction. , 2013, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[10]  Olga Solovyova,et al.  Current concepts in the treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations. , 2013, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[11]  K. Cameron,et al.  Epidemiology of Acromioclavicular Joint Injury in Young Athletes , 2012, The American journal of sports medicine.

[12]  Mark D. Miller,et al.  Complications Related to Anatomic Reconstruction of the Coracoclavicular Ligaments , 2012, The American journal of sports medicine.

[13]  C. Hing,et al.  Operative versus non-operative management following Rockwood grade III acromioclavicular separation: a meta-analysis of the current evidence base , 2011, Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology.

[14]  T. Mcadams Clavicular Fractures Following Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction with Tendon Graft: A Report of Three Cases , 2011 .

[15]  J. Ahn,et al.  Clinical Results of Single-Tunnel Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction Using Autogenous Semitendinosus Tendon , 2010, The American journal of sports medicine.

[16]  A. Mazzocca,et al.  The anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction: surgical technique and indications. , 2010, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[17]  J. Warner,et al.  Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries: Diagnosis and Management , 2009, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[18]  H. Resch,et al.  Semitendinosus Tendon Graft versus a Modified Weaver-Dunn Procedure for Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction in Chronic Cases , 2009, The American journal of sports medicine.

[19]  H. Resch,et al.  Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: surgical versus conservative treatment. , 2008, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[20]  R. Arciero,et al.  A Biomechanical Evaluation of an Anatomical Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction , 2006, The American journal of sports medicine.

[21]  Ryan S. Costic,et al.  Biomechanical function of surgical procedures for acromioclavicular joint dislocations. , 2004, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[22]  Ian J. Kremenic,et al.  Reconstruction of the Coracoclavicular Ligaments with Tendon Grafts , 2003, The American journal of sports medicine.

[23]  M. Lazarus Fractures in adults , 1992 .

[24]  J K Weaver,et al.  Treatment of acromioclavicular injuries, especially complete acromioclavicular separation. , 1972, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.