Literature DB >> 22048746

Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the young athlete: a retrospective matched analysis with 2-10 year follow-up.

Randy Mascarenhas1, Michael J Tranovich, Eric J Kropf, Freddie H Fu, Christopher D Harner.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine clinical and patient-reported outcomes as well as return to sport in athletes younger than 25 following ACL reconstruction with either bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) or hamstring (HS) autografts using a matched-pairs case-control experimental design.
METHODS: Twenty-three matched pairs were obtained based on gender (57% women), age (18 ± 3 years BTB vs. 18 ± 3 HS), and length of follow-up (5 ± 2 years BTB vs. 4 ± 2 HS). Patients reported participating in very strenuous (soccer, basketball, etc.) or strenuous (skiing, tennis, etc.) sporting activity 4-7 times/week prior to their knee injury. Patient-reported outcomes included return to play data, the IKDC, SAS, ADLS, and SF-36 forms. Clinical outcomes included knee range of motion, laxity, and hop/jump testing.
RESULTS: The majority of patients in both groups were able to participate in very strenuous or strenuous sporting activity 4-7 times per week following surgery [17 (74%) BTB vs. 16 (70%) HS]. However, only 13 (57%) of the BTB subjects and 10 (44%) of the HS patients were able to return to pre-injury activity levels (P = n.s.). HS patients showed higher ADLS (P < 0.01) and SAS (P < 0.01) scores, better restoration of extension (P < 0.05), and less radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Hamstring and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts allow approximately 70% of young athletes to return to some degree of strenuous or very strenuous sporting activity, while only approximately half of patients were able to return to their pre-injury sporting activity level. Hamstring grafts lead to better preservation of extension, higher patient-reported outcome scores, and less radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic (case-control study) Level III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22048746     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-011-1735-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  33 in total

1.  Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis.

Authors:  J H KELLGREN; J S LAWRENCE
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1957-12       Impact factor: 19.103

2.  No difference in knee function or prevalence of osteoarthritis after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with 4-strand hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon-bone autograft: a randomized study with 10-year follow-up.

Authors:  Inger Holm; Britt Elin Oiestad; May Arna Risberg; Arne Kristian Aune
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2010-01-23       Impact factor: 6.202

3.  A 2-year follow-up of rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon or hamstring tendon grafts: a prospective randomised outcome study.

Authors:  Annette Heijne; Suzanne Werner
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A comparison of patellar tendon autograft and four-strand hamstring tendon autograft.

Authors:  I S Corry; J M Webb; A J Clingeleffer; L A Pinczewski
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.202

5.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized study of three surgical methods.

Authors:  A F Anderson; R B Snyder; A B Lipscomb
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Development of a patient-reported measure of function of the knee.

Authors:  J J Irrgang; L Snyder-Mackler; R S Wainner; F H Fu; C D Harner
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 7.  Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in the young athlete: evaluation and treatment.

Authors:  David Schub; Paul Saluan
Journal:  Sports Med Arthrosc Rev       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.985

Review 8.  Patellar tendon or four-strand hamstring? A systematic review of autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Mark C Forster; Ian W Forster
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 9.  Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives.

Authors:  Jennifer M Hootman; Randall Dick; Julie Agel
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2007 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  Anterior cruciate ligament replacement: comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts with two-strand hamstring grafts. A prospective, randomized study.

Authors:  Bruce D Beynnon; Robert J Johnson; Braden C Fleming; Pekka Kannus; Michael Kaplan; John Samani; Per Renström
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  41 in total

1.  PATIENT-SPECIFIC AND SURGERY-SPECIFIC FACTORS THAT AFFECT RETURN TO SPORT AFTER ACL RECONSTRUCTION.

Authors:  Rick Joreitz; Andrew Lynch; Stephen Rabuck; Brittany Lynch; Sarah Davin; James Irrgang
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2016-04

2.  Arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with six-strand hamstring tendon allograft versus bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft.

Authors:  Chengliang Dai; Fei Wang; Xiaomeng Wang; Ruipeng Wang; Shengjie Wang; Shiyu Tang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  One-stage revision ACL reconstruction after primary ACL double bundle reconstruction: is bone-patella tendon-bone autograft reliable?

Authors:  Tomohiro Tomihara; Yusuke Hashimoto; Masatoshi Taniuchi; Junsei Takigami; Changhun Han; Nagakazu Shimada
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Julian Feller; Kate E Webster
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  The attic of the femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of outcomes of two suspensory femoral fixation systems.

Authors:  Ahmet Firat; Faruk Catma; Birol Tunc; Ciğdem Hacihafizoglu; Murat Altay; Murat Bozkurt; Mehmet Ismail S Kapicioglu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Low re-rupture rate with BPTB autograft and semitendinosus gracilis autograft with preserved insertions in ACL reconstruction surgery in sports persons.

Authors:  Ravi Gupta; Munish Sood; Anubhav Malhotra; Gladson David Masih; Anil Kapoor; Mukta Raghav; Mehar Dhillon
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Clinician's Commentary on Cupido et al.(1.).

Authors:  Derek Rutherford
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.037

8.  A randomized prospective controlled study with 5-year follow-up of cross-pin femoral fixation versus metal interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Patrick Björkman; Jerker Sandelin; Arsi Harilainen
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Younger age and hamstring tendon graft are associated with higher IKDC 2000 and KOOS scores during the first year after ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Nina Magnitskaya; Caroline Mouton; Alli Gokeler; Christian Nuehrenboerger; Dietrich Pape; Romain Seil
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  In vivo bone tunnel remodeling in symptomatic patients after ACL reconstruction: a retrospective comparison of articular and extra-articular fixation.

Authors:  Dominic T Mathis; Helmut Rasch; Michael T Hirschmann
Journal:  Muscles Ligaments Tendons J       Date:  2016-02-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.