Literature DB >> 29354416

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Basics: Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft Harvest.

Rachel M Frank1, John Higgins1, Eamon Bernardoni1, Gregory Cvetanovich1, Charles A Bush-Joseph1, Nikhil N Verma1, Bernard R Bach1.   

Abstract

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft has long been considered the graft preference for young, active patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries. The central-third of the native patellar tendon is a reliable graft and is the preferred option for competitive athletes given its excellent track record with high return-to-play rates and low failure rates. Disadvantages to using this graft include donor site morbidity and associated postoperative anterior knee pain, the risk of patellar fracture or patellar tendon tear, and the potential for graft-construct mismatch. In this Technical Note, we describe our preferred technique for bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft harvest and preparation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 29354416      PMCID: PMC5621981          DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2017.04.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthrosc Tech        ISSN: 2212-6287


Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains one of the most commonly performed knee operations in the United States. Among ACLR autograft options, the literature is variable regarding the preferred graft choice for a given patient, as excellent functional outcomes with low recurrence rates have been reported after both bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft and hamstring autograft. The central one-third of the patellar tendon has become the preferred autograft for ACLR in high-level athletes with excellent long-term outcomes, low recurrence rates, and high rates of return to sport.3, 4 Graft selection for ACLR is largely based on the surgeon's experience and preference, although several patient-specific factors must be considered, including patient size, as hamstring tendons may be too small to allow for an adequate graft, particularly in petite female patients. In this Technical Note, we describe our preferred technique for BPTB autograft harvest and graft preparation for ACLR. A summary of key steps is provided in Table 1, and a summary of the technique is provided in Video 1.
Table 1

Key Steps for Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Autograft Harvest for ACLR

Identify anatomic landmarks
 Tibial tubercle
 Patellar borders
Vertically oriented skin incision—approximately 5 cm
Visualization of both medial and lateral borders of the patellar tendon
Incise and preserve the paratenon for complete visualization of the patellar tendon
Measure and mark the central one-third of the patellar tendon
Longitudinally incise the tendon from proximal to distal after collagen orientation
Harvest tibial plug—10 mm × 25 mm
Harvest patella bone plug—10 mm × 20-25 mm
Separate autograft from the underlying patellar fat pad
Accurately size the bone plug according to the surgeon's preference
Write down bone plug measurements
Drill 2 holes in the tibia bone plug and 1 hole in the femoral bone plug—using the K wire
 Passing a No. 5 suture through each hole
Mark the bone-tendon junction on both bone plugs for proper orientation during graft passaging and fixation
Bone grafting—focus on the patella first
Closure of the paratenon using a No. 1 absorbable suture
Closure of subcutaneous and skin layers in a standard fashion

ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Key Steps for Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Autograft Harvest for ACLR ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Technique

Patient Positioning

We perform ACLR under general anesthesia with the patient in the supine position. Before final positioning, the injured knee is examined under anesthesia to confirm the diagnosis. If there is any concern over the diagnosis of an ACL injury, a diagnostic arthroscopy can be performed before harvesting the patellar tendon graft. After the examination under anesthesia, a padded tourniquet is placed high on the operative thigh, and the patient is positioned such that the operative leg is hanging off of the end of the operating table in a leg holder (Arthrex, Naples, FL), with the contralateral leg in a well-leg holder. The foot of the bed is lowered, allowing the surgeon room to harvest the graft while seated. The operative leg is prepped and draped in a standard fashion.

Graft Harvest

With the knee flexed to 90°, an approximately 8-cm longitudinal incision is made from the inferior pole of the patella to approximately 2 cm distal to the tibial tubercle, along the medial aspect of the patellar tendon (not directly in the midline). Placing this incision slightly medial will more easily allow access for tibial tunnel drilling without having to extend the incision. Dissection is carried through the subcutaneous tissue to the patellar tendon paratenon layer sharply with a knife. Small skin flaps can be created to allow for adequate visualization of the medial and lateral borders of the patellar tendon. The paratenon is then incised longitudinally along the mid-portion of the patellar tendon. Typically we will create a small “nick” in the paratenon with a No. 15 scalpel, and then use Metzenbaum scissors to incise the paratenon proximally and distally, exposing the underlying patellar tendon (Fig 1).
Fig 1

Intraoperative photograph showing identification and dissection of the paratenon layer during bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft harvest in a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Intraoperative photograph showing identification and dissection of the paratenon layer during bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft harvest in a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. At this point, a ruler is used to measure the width of the patellar tendon, which is typically 30 mm (Fig 2). The ruler is then used to identify the middle one-third of the tendon, which is what will ultimately be harvested. The distal pole of the patella and tubercle is lightly marked with a sterile marking pen. A thin osteotome (Arthrex) or the No. 238 saw blade (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI) can be used as a template for the planned harvest width. Care is taken to leave at least 10 mm of tendon medially. Next, starting either medially or laterally, a scalpel is used to incise the tendon longitudinally from proximal to distal, keeping the knife blade moving smoothly in line with the fibers of the tendon until the tibia is reached (Fig 3). This step is then repeated on the other side of the tendon graft. Care should be taken not to narrow or widen the second incision relative to the initial incision.
Fig 2

Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing measurement of the patellar tendon width before harvest.

Fig 3

Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing the harvest of the central third of the patellar tendon with a scalpel.

Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing measurement of the patellar tendon width before harvest. Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing the harvest of the central third of the patellar tendon with a scalpel. Next, the tibial plug is harvested. We aim for a bone plug that is approximately 10 mm wide and 25 mm long. The oscillating saw (Stryker) is used to score the tibial cortex before penetrating the saw blade into the bone (Fig 4). Once the cortex has been scored, the saw blade is inserted to a depth of approximately 8 to 10 mm along each side of the plug. The saw blade should be aimed slightly medially when on the lateral side of the tibial plug, and slightly laterally when on the medial side of the tibial plug, to ultimately create an equilateral triangle-shaped tibial bone plug. The distal horizontal (cross) cut is made by aiming the saw 45° obliquely toward either of the longitudinal cuts, to avoid cutting beyond the longitudinal cuts, thus avoiding the creation of a potential stress riser in the tibial bone. A thin osteotome (Arthrex) is then used to gently lift the tibial plug out from the tibia. If adequate saw cuts have been made, the tibial plug should be able to be easily freed up. Do not force the tibial plug out by levering it with the osteotome—instead, recut with the saw if necessary.
Fig 4

Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing harvesting of the tibial bone plug with an oscillating saw.

Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing harvesting of the tibial bone plug with an oscillating saw. Next, attention is turned to the patellar plug. We aim for a bone plug that is approximately 10 mm wide and 20 to 25 mm long. The oscillating saw (Stryker) is used to score the patellar cortex before actually penetrating the saw blade into the bone (Fig 5). Once the cortex has been scored, the saw blade is inserted to a depth of approximately 6 to 7 mm along each side of the plug, taking care to avoid injury to the underlying articular cartilage. The saw blade should be aimed approximately 30° toward the midline when harvesting on either side of the plug to ultimately create a trapezoidal-shaped patellar bone plug. The proximal horizontal (cross) cut is made by aiming the saw 45° obliquely toward either of the longitudinal cuts, to avoid cutting beyond the longitudinal cuts, thus avoiding the creation of a potential stress riser in the patellar bone. Thin curved osteotomes (Arthrex) are used to gently free the plug out from the patella. If adequate saw cuts have been made, the patellar plug should be able to be easily freed up (Fig 6). We recommend avoiding the use of a mallet when using an osteotome on the patella to decrease fracture risk. Careful dissection with Metzenbaum scissors is used to remove any remaining soft tissue attachments, and the graft is carefully removed from the knee by the harvesting surgeon and brought to the back table.
Fig 5

Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing harvesting of the patellar bone plug with an oscillating saw.

Fig 6

Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing the use of an osteotome to gently free up the patellar bone plug after an oscillating saw has been used to cut the plug free from the tibia. Care is taken to avoid forceful harvest of the patellar plug to avoid iatrogenic fracture.

Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing harvesting of the patellar bone plug with an oscillating saw. Intraoperative photograph of a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showing the use of an osteotome to gently free up the patellar bone plug after an oscillating saw has been used to cut the plug free from the tibia. Care is taken to avoid forceful harvest of the patellar plug to avoid iatrogenic fracture.

Graft Preparation

The BPTB graft can be prepared in a variety of ways. For the most patients, we aim to prepare both bone plugs slightly smaller than 10 mm (an “easy 10”), particularly on the femoral plug, to ensure that the plugs pass easily through the bone tunnels. We typically fashion the femoral plug to be approximately 20 to 22 mm in length, while leaving the tibial plug longer (at least 25 mm), as this plug can be shaved down after final fixation if needed. The bone plugs are trimmed to the appropriate size using any combination of a saw, rongeur, and scissors. Excess bone should be saved to be grafted into the bone plug harvest sites at the end of the case. Sizing tubes are used to confirm that each plug is appropriately sized and will be able to be passed easily through the bone tunnels (Fig 7).
Fig 7

Intraoperative photograph showing bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft preparation in a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, ensuring that the bone block can easily fit through the appropriately sized tunnel (in this case, a size 10 for both the tibial and femoral plugs).

Intraoperative photograph showing bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft preparation in a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, ensuring that the bone block can easily fit through the appropriately sized tunnel (in this case, a size 10 for both the tibial and femoral plugs). A small 0.062-inch K-wire (Stryker) is used to drill 2 holes approximately 5 mm apart in the tibial bone plug in the cancellous part of the plug, parallel to the cortical surface, followed by shuttling a No. 5 high-strength nonabsorbable suture (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) through each hole. In the femoral plug, only 1 hole is drilled (followed by suture shuttling) to allow the graft to be pulled through the tunnel during graft passing. Alternatively, if using the “push-in” technique, no drill holes or sutures need to be placed through the femoral plug (Fig 8). Finally, the bone-tendon junction of the femoral bone plug is marked with a sterile marking pen, as well as the far end of the tibial plug, which will assist with graft orientation during graft passage and fixation.
Fig 8

Intraoperative photograph showing final bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft preparation in a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Intraoperative photograph showing final bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft preparation in a patient undergoing left knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Closure

After ACLR, bone saved from the bone tunnel reamings and from the back-table graft preparation is used to graft the patellar and tibia bone plug harvest sites, emphasizing the patellar site. The patellar tendon defect is then loosely reapproximated with 2-3 No. 1 Vicryl interrupted sutures (Ethicon) with the knee in flexion, taking care not to overtighten the tendon. Next, the paratenon layer is closed with a running No. 1 absorbable suture (Ethicon) from proximal to distal. The subcutaneous tissue and skin layer are closed in a standard fashion.

Discussion

In this Technical Note, we describe a technique of BPTB autograft harvest and preparation for ACLR. BPTB autografts are considered the preferred graft choice for ACLR in high-level athletes, and offer the advantage of bone to bone integration of the graft versus the soft tissue to bone healing in the setting of ACLR with the hamstring autograft. Despite the potential advantages, it is important to recognize the potential complications associated with ACLR with the BPTB autograft, including patella fracture, patella maltracking, anterior knee pain (especially with kneeling), and extensor mechanism complications.3, 4 Anterior knee pain after BPTB harvest may be reduced by bone grafting the patellar and tibial bone plug harvest sites (Table 2).
Table 2

Pearls and Pitfalls Associated With Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Autograft Harvest for ACLR

Pearls• Perform examination under anesthesia and confirm diagnosis of ACL tear before harvesting the patellar tendon
• Leave at least 10 mm of native patellar tendon medially
• Score the cortex of the tibial and patellar bone plugs before cutting into the bone
• For the horizontal (cross) cut for both the tibial and patellar plug, aim the saw 45° obliquely toward either of the longitudinal cuts, to avoid cutting beyond the longitudinal cuts, thus avoiding the creation of a potential stress riser in the tibial bone
• Anterior knee pain after BPTB harvest may be reduced by bone grafting the patellar and tibial bone plug harvest sites
Pitfalls• Making skin incision directly in the midline will make it difficult to use that incision for tibial tunnel drilling—ensure that the incision is slightly medial to avoid this problem
• Take care not to narrow or widen the second incision relative to the initial incision when harvesting the middle third of the patellar tendon
• Avoid harvesting plugs that are too large (donor site morbidity and more difficult graft preparation) or too small (inadequate graft)
• Avoid mallet use on the patella (or minimize) to avoid iatrogenic patellar fracture

ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; BPTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone.

Pearls and Pitfalls Associated With Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Autograft Harvest for ACLR ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; BPTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone. No clinical studies to date have been able to prove consistently superior outcomes after ACLR with one autograft choice over another (Table 3). Data from the MOON group, for example, suggest higher failure rates after ACLR with BPTB allografts versus BPTB autografts, but the authors note no differences when comparing BPTB autografts with hamstring autografts. A recent systematic review analyzing 22 studies comparing outcomes after BPTB autograft with quadruple-hamstring autograft found that the BPTB patients might have improved rotational stability compared with hamstring patients, but that hamstring patients have lower rates of postoperative complications. Notably, a recent study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry showed an increased risk of revision ACLR after index reconstruction with hamstring autografts versus BPTB autografts. In a 2016 randomized controlled trial comparing the long-term outcomes after hamstring autograft versus BPTB autograft for ACLR, Webster et al. found no differences in the rate of graft rupture or contralateral ACL injury at the final follow-up. Importantly, more patients who underwent ACLR with BPTB autograft were participating in sport on a weekly basis compared with patients who received hamstring autograft.
Table 3

Advantages and Disadvantages Associated With Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Autograft Versus Hamstring Autograft Versus Quadriceps Tendon Autograft for ACLR

AdvantagesDisadvantages
Patellar tendon• Gold standard• Better restoration of Lachman, pivot shift, and instrumented laxity testing compared with hamstring autografts• Earlier healing for bone to bone healing• Anterior knee pain• Risk of patella fracture• Risk of patellar tendon rupture• Subject to graft-tunnel mismatch (can be avoided with intraoperative adjustments, however)
Hamstring• Less anterior knee pain• Strongest biomechanical graft at time = 0• More cosmetic• Advantageous for transphyseal ACLR in the pediatric population• Potential for small graft diameters (especially in females)• Potential for increased graft laxity over time• Longer healing for soft-tissue to bone
Quadriceps• Large cross-sectional area, can be helpful for revision ACLR in the setting of expanded bone tunnels• Excellent biomechanical strength compared with native ACL• Bone to bone healing on one end, with soft tissue on the other that may be advantageous for transphyseal ACLR in the pediatric population• Anterior knee pain• Risk of patella fracture• Risk of patellar tendon rupture• Lack of long-term clinical studies

ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Advantages and Disadvantages Associated With Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Autograft Versus Hamstring Autograft Versus Quadriceps Tendon Autograft for ACLR ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Overall, given the similar overall outcomes and failure rates for most patients undergoing ACLR with BPTB autograft and hamstring autograft, determining the most appropriate graft for a given patient undergoing ACLR should be based on both patient and surgeon preferences.
  9 in total

Review 1.  Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults.

Authors:  Nicholas Gh Mohtadi; Denise S Chan; Katie N Dainty; Daniel B Whelan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-09-07

Review 2.  A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Xiaobo Xie; Xuzhou Liu; Zhongran Chen; Yingdian Yu; Sheng Peng; Qi Li
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  Comparison of Graft Failure Rate Between Autografts Placed via an Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Technique: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression.

Authors:  Conrad M Gabler; Cale A Jacobs; Jennifer Sebert Howard; Carl G Mattacola; Darren L Johnson
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 6.202

4.  Risk Factors and Predictors of Subsequent ACL Injury in Either Knee After ACL Reconstruction: Prospective Analysis of 2488 Primary ACL Reconstructions From the MOON Cohort.

Authors:  Christopher C Kaeding; Angela D Pedroza; Emily K Reinke; Laura J Huston; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 5.  Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Robin V West; Christopher D Harner
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.020

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.  Comparison of Patellar Tendon and Hamstring Tendon Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 15-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Kate E Webster; Julian A Feller; Nigel Hartnett; Warren B Leigh; Anneka K Richmond
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  Biomechanical analysis of human ligament grafts used in knee-ligament repairs and reconstructions.

Authors:  F R Noyes; D L Butler; E S Grood; R F Zernicke; M S Hefzy
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States.

Authors:  Nathan A Mall; Peter N Chalmers; Mario Moric; Miho J Tanaka; Brian J Cole; Bernard R Bach; George A Paletta
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 6.202

  9 in total
  13 in total

1.  Predicting adequacy of free quadriceps tendon autograft, for primary and revision ACL reconstruction, from patients' physical parameters.

Authors:  Anthony Ugwuoke; Farhan Syed; Sam El-Kawy
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Anterior knee pain in ACL reconstruction with BPTB graft - Is it a myth? Comparative outcome analysis with hamstring graft in 1,250 patients.

Authors:  Gopalakrishnan Janani; Perumal Suresh; Ayyadurai Prakash; Jeganathan Parthiban; Karthik Anand; Sivaraman Arumugam
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-09-28

3.  Alteration of patellar tendon morphology in patellofemoral instability (trochlear dysplasia).

Authors:  K P Iyengar; J Kho; C A Azzopardi; S Haleem; F Ezegbe; R Botchu
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2022-02-01

Review 4.  Quadriceps tendon autograft for pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in promising postoperative function and rates of return to sports: A systematic review.

Authors:  Alexander Zakharia; Darius L Lameire; Hassaan Abdel Khalik; Jeffrey Kay; Abhilash Uddandam; Kanto Nagai; Yuichi Hoshino; Darren de Sa
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 4.114

5.  Effect of Patient Height and Sex on the Patellar Tendon and Anterior Cruciate Ligament.

Authors:  Abigail L Campbell; Jon-Michael E Caldwell; Dheeraj Yalamanchili; Lia Sepanek; Keon Youssefzadeh; Carlos A Uquillas; Orr Limpisvasti
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-05-03

6.  Predicting the peroneus longus tendon autograft size in ACL reconstruction by using anthropometric parameters: A study in South Sulawesi population.

Authors:  M Sakti; K T Biakto; M A Usman; M J Tedjajuwana; P Pasallo; E S Subagio
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-03-25

7.  Predictors for Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Re-injury after Successful Primary ACL Reconstruction (ACLR).

Authors:  R Gupta; A Singhal; A Malhotra; A Soni; G D Masih; M Raghav
Journal:  Malays Orthop J       Date:  2020-11

8.  Radiographic assessment of bone tunnels after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comparison of hamstring tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografting technique.

Authors:  Mustafa Yasin Hatipoğlu; Resul Bircan; Hamza Özer; Hakan Yusuf Selek; Gülcan Harput; Yaşar Gül Baltacı
Journal:  Jt Dis Relat Surg       Date:  2021-01-06

9.  Patient-Reported Knee Outcome Scores With Soft Tissue Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Are Similar to Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery.

Authors:  Jose R Perez; Christopher P Emerson; Carlos M Barrera; Dylan N Greif; William H Cade; Lee D Kaplan; Michael G Baraga
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-12-17

10.  The Association Between Anterior Cruciate Ligament Length and Femoral Epicondylar Width Measured on Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Radiograph.

Authors:  Reinette Van Zyl; Albert-Neels Van Schoor; Peet J Du Toit; Farhana E Suleman; Mark D Velleman; Vaida Glatt; Kevin Tetsworth; Erik Hohmann
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2019-12-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.