Effect of Coracoid Drilling for Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction Techniques on Coracoid Fracture Risk: A Biomechanical Study

PurposeTo biomechanically compare the stability of the coracoid process after an anatomic double-tunnel technique using two 4-mm drill holes or a single-tunnel technique using one 4-mm or one 2.4-mm drill hole.MethodsFor biomechanical testing, 18 fresh-frozen cadaveric scapulae were used and randomly assigned to one of the following groups: two 4-mm drill holes (group 1), one 4-mm drill hole (group 2), or one 2.4-mm drill hole (group 3). After standardized coracoid drilling, load was applied to the conjoined tendons at a rate of 120 mm/min and ultimate failure load, along with the failure mode, was recorded.ResultsThere was no significant difference between groups regarding load to failure. Mean load to failure in group 1 was 392 N; group 2, 459 N; and group 3, 506 N. The corresponding P values were .55, .74, and .20 for group 1 versus group 2, group 2 versus group 3, and group 1 versus group 3, respectively. However, the failure mode for the group with one 4-mm drill hole and the group with two 4-mm drill holes was coracoid fracture, whereas the group with one 2.4-mm drill hole showed 5 tears of the conjoined tendons and only 1 coracoid fracture (P = .015).ConclusionsAlthough there was no significant difference regarding load-to-failure testing between groups, the failure mechanism analysis showed that one 2.4-mm drill hole led to less destabilization of the coracoid than one or two 4-mm drill holes.Clinical RelevanceTechniques with small, 2.4-mm drill holes might decrease the risk of severe iatrogenic fracture complications.