PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and investigate whether the clinical results of 4-strand hamstring tendon (HT) reconstruction are still inferior to that of the patellar tendon (PT). METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the English literature on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane register for papers that compared clinical outcomes of PT versus HT for ACL reconstruction. Outcome measures analyzed included rate of rerupture, KT-1000, International Knee Documentation Committee grade, Lachman, pivot shift, Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale, anterior knee pain, and discomfort on kneeling. RESULTS: We included 19 studies from an initial 1,168 abstracts for the systematic review, and, eventually, 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The study population consisted of a total of 1784 patients. The average follow-up duration was 58.8 months. We found significant differences in favor of the HT technique in the domains of anterior knee pain, kneeling pain, and restriction in the range of active extension ("extension deficit"). We found no differences between the PT and HT technique in terms of rerupture rate. There were no clinically significant differences for the outcomes of Lysholm score and Tegner Activity Scale as well as the KT-1000 side-to-side at maximum manual force. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary 4-strand HT ACL reconstruction is comparable with the PT technique in terms of clinical stability and postoperative functional status across most parameters studied. The HT technique carries lower risk of postoperative complications such as anterior knee pain, kneeling discomfort, and extension deficit. Primary ACL reconstruction using the 4-strand HT technique achieves clinical results that are comparable with the PT technique with significantly less postoperative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systemic review and meta-analysis of Level I studies.
PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and investigate whether the clinical results of 4-strand hamstring tendon (HT) reconstruction are still inferior to that of the patellar tendon (PT). METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the English literature on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane register for papers that compared clinical outcomes of PT versus HT for ACL reconstruction. Outcome measures analyzed included rate of rerupture, KT-1000, International Knee Documentation Committee grade, Lachman, pivot shift, Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale, anterior knee pain, and discomfort on kneeling. RESULTS: We included 19 studies from an initial 1,168 abstracts for the systematic review, and, eventually, 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The study population consisted of a total of 1784 patients. The average follow-up duration was 58.8 months. We found significant differences in favor of the HT technique in the domains of anterior knee pain, kneeling pain, and restriction in the range of active extension ("extension deficit"). We found no differences between the PT and HT technique in terms of rerupture rate. There were no clinically significant differences for the outcomes of Lysholm score and Tegner Activity Scale as well as the KT-1000 side-to-side at maximum manual force. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary 4-strand HT ACL reconstruction is comparable with the PT technique in terms of clinical stability and postoperative functional status across most parameters studied. The HT technique carries lower risk of postoperative complications such as anterior knee pain, kneeling discomfort, and extension deficit. Primary ACL reconstruction using the 4-strand HT technique achieves clinical results that are comparable with the PT technique with significantly less postoperative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systemic review and meta-analysis of Level I studies.
Authors: J Kristopher Ware; Brett D Owens; Matthew R Akelman; Naga Padmini Karamchedu; Paul D Fadale; Michael J Hulstyn; Robert M Shalvoy; Gary J Badger; Braden C Fleming Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Markus P Arnold; Jacob G Calcei; Nicole Vogel; Robert A Magnussen; Mark Clatworthy; Tim Spalding; John D Campbell; John A Bergfeld; Seth L Sherman Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Jay R Ebert; Peter Edwards; Luke Yi; Brendan Joss; Timothy Ackland; Richard Carey-Smith; Jens-Ulrich Buelow; Ben Hewitt Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Christopher Kuenze; Brian Pietrosimone; Caroline Lisee; Margaret Rutherford; Tom Birchmeier; Adam Lepley; Joseph Hart Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: S Supreeth; S A Ghanami; M A Riyami; S A Habsi; P S Murthi; W A Kalbani; H A Saqri; S N Haddad; S R Abdelmasih Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2022-03-12
Authors: Jay R Ebert; Peter Edwards; Justine Currie; Anne Smith; Brendan Joss; Timothy Ackland; Jens-Ulrich Buelow; Ben Hewitt Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2018-06