Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 30, 2026
Novel Triple-Loop Technique for Suturing TFCC Injuries without Transosseous Tunnel
Published on: May 23, 2025
Biomechanical Comparison of Fracture Risk Created by 2 Different Clavicle Tunnel Preparations for Coracoclavicular
Michael S Nuzzo1, Gregory J Adamson2, Thay Q Lee3
1Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Veterans Administration Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, California, USA. ; University of California, San Francisco-Fresno, Fresno, California, USA.
Background:
An anatomic reconstruction of coracoclavicular (CC) ligaments typically requires drilling tunnels in the clavicle. An increase in fracture complications has been associated with graft tunnel position. A method of drilling clavicle tunnels that would better re-create anatomic function of the CC ligaments without increasing fracture risk would be an improvement.
Purpose:
To evaluate the feasibility of a novel single anterior-to-posterior tunnel technique and compare the biomechanical properties to the 2-tunnel technique in CC ligament reconstruction. The hypothesis was that the single tunnel will yield similar loads to failure as the 2-tunnel technique and better reproduce the native anatomy of the conoid and trapezoid ligaments.
Study Design:
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods:
Eight fresh-frozen matched pairs of human clavicles underwent testing. In 1 specimen of the matched pair, 2 bone tunnels were created as previously described. In the other, a single tunnel was placed obliquely from anterior to posterior. The relative position of the tunnels in relation to the conoid tuberosity was recorded. Specimens were tested on a materials testing machine. The ultimate load to failure, linear stiffness, distance of the conoid tuberosity to the conoid tunnel exit point, and mode of failure were recorded.
Results:
The ultimate load to failure in the single-tunnel group and the 2-tunnel group was 457.2 ± 139.8 and 488.8 ± 170.6, respectively. There was no significant difference (P = .5). The linear stiffness in the single-tunnel group and the 2-tunnel group was 94.6 ± 31.3 and 79.8 ± 33.5, respectively. There was no significant difference (P = .2). The 2-tunnel group had a significantly longer average maximum distance from the conoid tuberosity to the conoid tunnel exit point than the single-tunnel group (6.0 ± 2.1 vs 0.8 ± 1.9 mm; P = .05). The single-tunnel group was consistently more anatomic with regard to its relationship to the conoid tuberosity than the 2-tunnel group.
Conclusion:
The single anterior-to-posterior clavicle tunnel had similar biomechanical properties to the 2-tunnel technique. However, the single-tunnel technique better reproduced the anatomic footprint of the conoid ligament. Utilizing this single-tunnel technique may yield an anatomic advantage that may also reduce the rate of complications caused by posterior wall blowout.
Clinical Relevance:
Acromioclavicular joint injuries are common in collision sports. Surgical management is often indicated to reconstruct the joint. This study assesses the feasibility of a novel surgical approach.
