The Con damage is abstract. Comparing it to actual bone-breakings in real life is probably not realistic. I think in that way the flavor fits the 3.x setting.
However, it is a pretty nasty feat. Even Ferrix's version is very good. Were I a rogue player I'd be itching for this feat. Con damage is simply brutal in DnD, no bones about it. To add to Ferrix's version, I'd add that this attack deals no hit point damage. As has been said many times, this feat simply gets better against higher-level foes, so I think hp damage on top of Con damage is a bit much. I might also require the Fort save, as above (though if no hp damage is being dealt, I'm less inclined to this solution). Consider something like this as well:
Shattering Strike
Your sneak attacks target vital bone or supporting structures, crippling your opponents
Prerequisites: +1d6 Sneak Attack, base attack bonus +4, Str 13
Benefit: If you hit with a sneak attack, you may choose to forgo +1d6 of sneak attack to cripple your opponents. If the attack hits, the opponent takes a -2 penalty to AC and a -4 penalty to all physical skills. Treat these penalties as ability damage for the purposes of natural healing, however they can also be healed by any magical healing, such as a cure spell (1 penalty removed per point of healing, removing the skill penalty first, then the penalty to Armor Class).
Notes: Because it is a sneak attack, your target must be susceptible to sneak attack damage, thus undead, constructs, and other creatures immune to critical hits and sneak attacks are not affected by a shattering strike.
It's a bit more complicated than the above versions, but I also think it sticks to the flavor of the feat, is much less powerful than dealing Con damage, and is still useful.