Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 21, 2026

Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography
Published on: March 12, 2021
A Biomechanical Analysis of Different Clavicular Tunnel Diameters in Anatomic Acromioclavicular Ligament
Andreas Voss1, Knut Beitzel2, Farhang Alaee3
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, U.S.A..
Purpose:
To evaluate the biomechanical stability of a tendon-to-clavicle bone interface fixation of a graft in revision acromioclavicular reconstruction.
Methods:
Fifteen fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were used. All specimens underwent bone density evaluation. For the primary reconstruction, a 5-mm semitendinosus allograft was inserted into a 5-mm bone tunnel at 25 and 45 mm from the lateral end of the clavicle using a 5.5 × 8-mm PEEK (polyether ether ketone) tenodesis screw. Each single graft was fixed in a cryo-clamp and cyclically loaded from 5 to 70 N for 3,000 cycles, followed by load-to-failure testing at a rate of 120 mm/min to simulate the revision case. To simulate tunnel widening, the tunnels of the revision series were over-drilled with an 8-mm drill, and a 5-mm semitendinosus graft with an 8 × 12-mm PEEK tenodesis screw was inserted. Biomechanical testing was then repeated.
Results:
The bone mineral density analysis showed a significantly higher density at the 45-mm hole compared with the 25-mm hole (P = .001). The ultimate load to failure increased from the 5.5-mm screw to the 8-mm screw at the 45-mm hole position (P = .001). There was no statistically significant difference at the 25-mm hole position (P = .934). No statistical significance for graft elongation comparing the 5.5-mm screw and the 8-mm screw at the 25-mm (P = .156) and 45-mm (P = .334) positions could be found.
Conclusions:
Comparable biomechanical stability for the tendon-to-bone interface fixation in different clavicular tunnel diameters simulating primary and revision reconstruction was achieved.
Clinical Relevance:
There is a lack of literature regarding revision acromioclavicular joint reconstruction, but our biomechanical results show comparable stability to primary reconstruction. These data provide support for the use of anatomic acromioclavicular ligament reconstruction in revision cases.
More Related Videos
06:28Anterior Cruciate Ligament Transection and Synovial Fluid Lavage in a Rodent Model to Study Joint Inflammation and Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis
Published on: September 2, 2025
05:25Knotless Independent Double-Row Repair and Biceps Augmentation for Anterosuperior Rotator Cuff Tears
Published on: January 23, 2026