Brian M Leo1, Michael Krill2, Leticia Barksdale3, Andres M Alvarez-Pinzon3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Health, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, U.S.A.. Electronic address: leob2@ccf.org. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Health, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, U.S.A.; Florida Atlantic University, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Boca Raton, Florida, U.S.A. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Health, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the revision rate and subjective outcome measures of autograft hamstring versus a soft tissue hybrid graft combining both autograft hamstring and tibialis allograft for isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: A single-center retrospective, nonrandomized, comparative study of isolated ACL reconstruction revision rates for subjects who underwent arthroscopic reconstruction of the ACL using autograft hamstring or a soft tissue hybrid graft using both autograft hamstring and tibialis allograft was performed. Patients with isolated ACL tears were included and underwent anatomic single-bundle reconstruction using an independent tunnel drilling technique and a minimum of 24 months' follow-up. The primary outcome assessed was the presence or absence of ACL rerupture. Secondary clinical outcomes consisted of the International Knee Documentation Committee, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) ACL quality of life assessment, and the visual analog pain scale. RESULTS: Between February 2010 and April 2013, 95 patients with isolated ACL tears between ages 18 and 40 met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. Seventy-one autograft hamstring and 24 soft tissue hybrid graft ACL reconstructions were performed during the course of this study. The follow-up period was 24 to 32 months (mean 26.9 months). There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or Outerbridge classification. No statistically significant differences in ACL retears (5.6% auto, 4.2% hybrid; P = .57) were found between groups. Clinical International Knee Documentation Committee and UCLA ACL quality of life assessment improvement scores revealed no statistically significant differences in autograft and hybrid graft reconstructions (41 ± 11, 43 ± 13; P = .65) (38 ± 11, 40 ± 10; P = .23). The mean pain level decreased from 8.1 to 2.8 in the autograft group and 7.9 to 2.5 in the hybrid group (P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a hybrid soft tissue graft has a comparable rerupture rate and clinical outcome to ACL reconstruction using autograft hamstring. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: To compare the revision rate and subjective outcome measures of autograft hamstring versus a soft tissue hybrid graft combining both autograft hamstring and tibialis allograft for isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: A single-center retrospective, nonrandomized, comparative study of isolated ACL reconstruction revision rates for subjects who underwent arthroscopic reconstruction of the ACL using autograft hamstring or a soft tissue hybrid graft using both autograft hamstring and tibialis allograft was performed. Patients with isolated ACL tears were included and underwent anatomic single-bundle reconstruction using an independent tunnel drilling technique and a minimum of 24 months' follow-up. The primary outcome assessed was the presence or absence of ACL rerupture. Secondary clinical outcomes consisted of the International Knee Documentation Committee, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) ACL quality of life assessment, and the visual analog pain scale. RESULTS: Between February 2010 and April 2013, 95 patients with isolated ACL tears between ages 18 and 40 met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. Seventy-one autograft hamstring and 24 soft tissue hybrid graft ACL reconstructions were performed during the course of this study. The follow-up period was 24 to 32 months (mean 26.9 months). There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or Outerbridge classification. No statistically significant differences in ACL retears (5.6% auto, 4.2% hybrid; P = .57) were found between groups. Clinical International Knee Documentation Committee and UCLA ACL quality of life assessment improvement scores revealed no statistically significant differences in autograft and hybrid graft reconstructions (41 ± 11, 43 ± 13; P = .65) (38 ± 11, 40 ± 10; P = .23). The mean pain level decreased from 8.1 to 2.8 in the autograft group and 7.9 to 2.5 in the hybrid group (P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a hybrid soft tissue graft has a comparable rerupture rate and clinical outcome to ACL reconstruction using autograft hamstring. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Authors: Christopher P Emerson; Jessica M Bernstein; Fong Nham; Spencer Barnhill; Michael G Baraga; Eric Bogner; Jean Jose Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Benton E Heyworth; Evan T Zheng; Patrick Vavken; Elizabeth S Liotta; Dennis E Kramer; Yi-Meng Yen; Lyle J Micheli; Mininder S Kocher Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-01-22