title: Rotational and translational stability of different methods for direct acromioclavicular ligament repair in anatomic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Many reconstructions of acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations have focused on the coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments and neglected the functional contribution of the AC ligaments and the deltotrapezial fascia.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the modifications of previously published methods for direct AC reconstruction in addition to a CC reconstruction. The hypothesis was that there would be significant differences within the variations of surgical reconstructions.
  
  
  METHODS
  Controlled laboratory study.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 24 cadaveric shoulders were tested with a servohydraulic testing system. Two digitizing cameras evaluated the 3-dimensional movement. All reconstructions were based on a CC reconstruction using 2 clavicle tunnels and a tendon graft. The following techniques were used to reconstruct the AC ligaments: a graft was shuttled underneath the AC joint back from anterior and again sutured to the acromial side of the joint (group 1), a graft was fixed intramedullary in the acromion and distal clavicle (group 2), a graft was passed over the acromion and into an acromial tunnel (group 3), and a FiberTape was fixed in a cruciate configuration (group 4). Anterior, posterior, and superior translation, as well as anterior and posterior rotation, were tested.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Group 1 showed significantly less posterior translation compared with the 3 other groups (P < .05) but did not show significant differences compared with the native joint. Groups 3 and 4 demonstrated significantly more posterior translation than the native joint. Group 1 showed significantly less anterior translation compared with groups 2 and 3. Group 3 demonstrated significantly more anterior translation than the native joint. Group 1 demonstrated significantly less superior translation compared with the other groups and with the native joint. The AC joint of group 1 was pulled apart less compared with all other reconstructions. Only group 1 reproduced the native joint for the anterior rotation at the posterior marker. Group 4 showed significantly increased distances for all 3 measure points when the clavicle was rotated posteriorly.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Reconstruction of the AC ligament by direct wrapping and suturing of the remaining graft around the AC joint (group 1) was the most stable method and was the only one to show anterior rotation comparable with the native joint. In contrast, the transacromial technique (group 3) showed the most translation and rotation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  An anatomic repair should address both the CC ligaments and the AC ligaments to control the optimal physiologic function (translation and rotation).
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
authors.forename: Knut
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Beitzel
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
authors.forename: Elifho
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Obopilwe
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Apostolakos
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
authors.forename: Mark P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Cote
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
authors.forename: Ryan P
authors.initials: RP
authors.lastname: Russell
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
authors.forename: Ryan
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Charette
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
authors.forename: Hardeep
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Singh
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
authors.forename: Robert A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Arciero
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
authors.forename: Andreas B
authors.initials: AB
authors.lastname: Imhoff
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA mazzocca@uchc.edu.
authors.forename: Augustus D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Mazzocca
mesh_terms: D000173:Acromioclavicular Joint / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D000368:Aged; D001178:Arthroplasty / Q000379:methods*; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D002102:Cadaver; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional; D017746:Joint Capsule / Q000601:surgery; D008023:Ligaments, Articular / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular; D012399:Rotation; D013536:Suture Techniques; D013710:Tendons / Q000637:transplantation*
keywords: AC joint dislocation; AC separation; acromioclavicular (AC) joint; anatomic acromioclavicular joint reconstruction; coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction