Literature DB >> 28205075

Hamstring Autograft versus Patellar Tendon Autograft for ACL Reconstruction: Is There a Difference in Graft Failure Rate? A Meta-analysis of 47,613 Patients.

Brian T Samuelsen1, Kate E Webster2, Nick R Johnson1, Timothy E Hewett1, Aaron J Krych3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bone-patellar tendon-bone (bone-tendon-bone) and four-strand hamstring tendon grafts (hamstring) are the most commonly utilized autografts for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Existing clinical trials, registry studies, and meta-analyses offer conflicting opinions regarding the most favorable graft choice. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Which graft type for ACL reconstruction (bone-tendon-bone or hamstring) has a higher risk of (1) graft rupture and/or (2) graft laxity?
METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, and high-quality national registry studies to compare the outcomes of primary ACL reconstruction with bone-tendon-bone autograft or hamstring autograft. Studies that compared these graft types were identified through a comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library). Two independent reviewers utilized the Jadad scale for RCT study quality and the Modified Coleman Methodology Score for prospective comparative and registry study quality. The included studies were analyzed for the primary outcome measure of graft rupture with or without revision ACL surgery. In surviving grafts, secondary outcomes of graft laxity were quantified by KT1000/2000™ testing, a positive pivot shift test, and a positive Lachman test. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager. A total of 47,613 ACL reconstructions (39,768 bone-tendon-bone and 7845 hamstring) from 14 RCTs, 10 prospective comparative studies, and one high-quality national registry study were included in this meta-analysis. Mean age was 28 years in both groups. Sixty-three percent of patients in the bone-tendon-bone cohort were men versus 57% of patients in the hamstring cohort. Mean followup was 68 ± 55 months.
RESULTS: Two hundred twelve of 7560 (2.80%) bone-tendon-bone grafts ruptured compared with 1123 of 39,510 (2.84%) in the hamstring group (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.96; p = 0.01). The number needed to treat analysis found that 235 patients would need to be treated with a bone-tendon-bone graft over a hamstring tendon graft to prevent one graft rupture. Instrumented laxity analysis showed that 22% (318 of 1433) of patients in the bone-tendon-bone group had laxity compared with 18% (869 of 4783) in the hamstring tendon group (odds ratio = 0.86; p = 0.16). Pivot shift analysis showed a positive pivot shift in 19% (291 of 1508) of the bone-tendon-bone group compared with 17% (844 of 5062) in the hamstring group (odds ratio = 0.89; p = 0.51). Lachman testing showed a positive Lachman in 25% (71 of 280) of patients receiving bone-tendon-bone grafts compared with 25% (73 of 288) in the hamstring group (odds ratio = 0.96; p = 0.84).
CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis of short- to mid-term followup after primary ACL reconstruction, hamstring autografts failed at a higher rate than bone-tendon-bone autografts. However, failure rates were low in each group, the difference observed was small, and we observed few differences between graft types in terms of laxity. Both graft types remain viable options for primary ACL reconstruction, and the difference in failure rate should be one part of a larger conversation with each individual patient about graft selection that should also include potential differences in donor site morbidity, complication rates, and patient-reported outcome measures. Continued prospective collection of patient data will be important going forward as we attempt to further characterize the potential differences in outcomes attributable to graft selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Hamstring Graft; Pivot Shift; Pivot Shift Testing

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28205075      PMCID: PMC5599382          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-017-5278-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  47 in total

1.  Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a clinical comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone single bundle versus semitendinosus and gracilis double bundle technique.

Authors:  Patrick Sadoghi; Peter E Müller; Volkmar Jansson; Martin van Griensven; Albert Kröpfl; Martin F Fischmeister
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-05-05       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: timing of surgery and the incidence of meniscal tears and degenerative change.

Authors:  S Church; J F Keating
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-12

Review 3.  Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries, part 2.

Authors:  Bruce D Beynnon; Robert J Johnson; Joseph A Abate; Braden C Fleming; Claude E Nichols
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 6.202

4.  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

5.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon: a prospective comparative study with 9-year follow-up.

Authors:  Benjamin Wipfler; Stefanie Donner; Christian M Zechmann; Jan Springer; Rainer Siebold; Hans Heinrich Paessler
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.772

6.  Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004-2012.

Authors:  Andreas Persson; Knut Fjeldsgaard; Jan-Erik Gjertsen; Asle B Kjellsen; Lars Engebretsen; Randi M Hole; Jonas M Fevang
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a metaanalysis comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts.

Authors:  Kevin B Freedman; Michael J D'Amato; David D Nedeff; Ari Kaz; Bernard R Bach
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  A prospective comparison of 3 hamstring ACL fixation devices--Rigidfix, BioScrew, and Intrafix--randomized into 4 groups with 2 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Arsi Harilainen; Jerker Sandelin
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 9.  Evaluation of the effectiveness of neuromuscular training to reduce anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes: a critical review of relative risk reduction and numbers-needed-to-treat analyses.

Authors:  Dai Sugimoto; Gregory D Myer; Jennifer M McKeon; Timothy E Hewett
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 10.  Does revision ACL reconstruction measure up to primary surgery? A meta-analysis comparing patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes, and radiographic results.

Authors:  Alberto Grassi; Clare L Ardern; Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli; Maria Pia Neri; Maurilio Marcacci; Stefano Zaffagnini
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 13.800

View more
  72 in total

1.  ACL Study Group survey reveals the evolution of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft choice over the past three decades.

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

2.  Athletes With Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Were Slower to Meet Rehabilitation Milestones and Return-to-Sport Criteria Than Athletes With Hamstring Tendon Autograft or Soft Tissue Allograft : Secondary Analysis From the ACL-SPORTS Trial.

Authors:  Angela Hutchinson Smith; Jacob J Capin; Ryan Zarzycki; Lynn Snyder-Mackler
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 4.751

Review 3.  Association between incision technique for hamstring tendon harvest in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and the risk of injury to the infra-patellar branch of the saphenous nerve: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alberto Grassi; Francesco Perdisa; Kristian Samuelsson; Eleonor Svantesson; Matteo Romagnoli; Federico Raggi; Teide Gaziano; Massimiliano Mosca; Olufemi Ayeni; Stefano Zaffagnini
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  The vancomycin soaking technique: no differences in autograft re-rupture rate. A comparative study.

Authors:  Daniel Pérez-Prieto; Simone Perelli; Ferran Corcoll; Gonzalo Rojas; Verónica Montiel; Juan Carlos Monllau
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Bone-to-bone integrations were complete within 5 months after anatomical rectangular tunnel anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft.

Authors:  Hironari Masuda; Shuji Taketomi; Hiroshi Inui; Naoya Shimazaki; Nobuhiro Nishihara; Seikai Toyooka; Hirotaka Kawano; Takumi Nakagawa
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  The role of muscle function after anterior cruciate ligament rupture and treatment.

Authors:  Roland Becker; Jon Karlsson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Implications for Early Postoperative Care After Quadriceps Tendon Autograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Technical Note.

Authors:  Jennifer L Hunnicutt; Harris S Slone; John W Xerogeanes
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Clinical measures associated with knee function over two years in young athletes after ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Matthew P Ithurburn; Mark V Paterno; Staci Thomas; Michael L Pennell; Kevin D Evans; Robert A Magnussen; Laura C Schmitt
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 9.  Arthroscopic primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament: what the radiologist needs to know.

Authors:  Steven P Daniels; Jelle P van der List; J Jacob Kazam; Gregory S DiFelice
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in High School and College-Aged Athletes: Does Autograft Choice Influence Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Rates?

Authors:  Kurt P Spindler; Laura J Huston; Alexander Zajichek; Emily K Reinke; Annunziato Amendola; Jack T Andrish; Robert H Brophy; Warren R Dunn; David C Flanigan; Morgan H Jones; Christopher C Kaeding; Robert G Marx; Matthew J Matava; Eric C McCarty; Richard D Parker; Armando F Vidal; Michelle L Wolcott; Brian R Wolf; Rick W Wright
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 6.202

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.