Mandeep S Dhillon1, Rajesh Kumar Rajnish2, Sidak Dhillon3, Prasoon Kumar1. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Post Graduate Institue of Medical Eduacation and Research, Chandigarh, India. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, PIN-174001, India. 3. FC Chennaiyan, Chennai, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regeneration potential of Hamstring tendons after harvest assumes significant clinical relevance as its use has become widespread today. Methods which best assess the regeneration, extent and type of regeneration, plus issues related to functional loss are important for the surgeon to know. This review looks at the literature to find answers to the above questions. PURPOSE: To summarize the evidence in support of hamstring tendon regeneration, and the most appropriate modality for evaluation of regeneration. Additionally, to evaluate the regeneration in terms of complete or partial, extent and its impact on strength deficit and functional outcomes. METHODS: We did a systematic review of literature through specified search engines and identified 30 of 285 studies to be relevant (19 prospective and 11 retrospective). RESULTS: Evaluation of above data suggests tissue regeneration at harvest sites does occur (78.9% of semitendinosus and 42.7% of gracilis tendons), but this regeneration is variable. No established definition of regeneration exists; MRI is an adequate tool to identify regeneration, while biopsy is confirmative. USG is a cost-effective screening method and can document distal progress of regenerate. Semitendinosus and gracilis tendons regenerate at different rates and extents, and often fuse together, but there is no evidence to state that one regenerates better than the other. Proximal retraction of the muscle-tendon junction occurs, along with some atrophy, which affects function to a variable extent. Strength deficits may persist, but they may not convert to significant functional deficits. CONCLUSION: There is variable hamstring regeneration after harvest, with poorly defined definition of "regeneration". Some changes in the muscle itself, abnormal distal insertion and absence of regeneration in some are documented, along with strength deficits. Although overall functional deficits have been reported to be minimal, a definite change in the anatomy of the medial hamstrings is a factor to be kept in consideration. More information is needed about the long-term consequences.
BACKGROUND: Regeneration potential of Hamstring tendons after harvest assumes significant clinical relevance as its use has become widespread today. Methods which best assess the regeneration, extent and type of regeneration, plus issues related to functional loss are important for the surgeon to know. This review looks at the literature to find answers to the above questions. PURPOSE: To summarize the evidence in support of hamstring tendon regeneration, and the most appropriate modality for evaluation of regeneration. Additionally, to evaluate the regeneration in terms of complete or partial, extent and its impact on strength deficit and functional outcomes. METHODS: We did a systematic review of literature through specified search engines and identified 30 of 285 studies to be relevant (19 prospective and 11 retrospective). RESULTS: Evaluation of above data suggests tissue regeneration at harvest sites does occur (78.9% of semitendinosus and 42.7% of gracilis tendons), but this regeneration is variable. No established definition of regeneration exists; MRI is an adequate tool to identify regeneration, while biopsy is confirmative. USG is a cost-effective screening method and can document distal progress of regenerate. Semitendinosus and gracilis tendons regenerate at different rates and extents, and often fuse together, but there is no evidence to state that one regenerates better than the other. Proximal retraction of the muscle-tendon junction occurs, along with some atrophy, which affects function to a variable extent. Strength deficits may persist, but they may not convert to significant functional deficits. CONCLUSION: There is variable hamstring regeneration after harvest, with poorly defined definition of "regeneration". Some changes in the muscle itself, abnormal distal insertion and absence of regeneration in some are documented, along with strength deficits. Although overall functional deficits have been reported to be minimal, a definite change in the anatomy of the medial hamstrings is a factor to be kept in consideration. More information is needed about the long-term consequences.
Authors: Jason M Konrath; Christopher J Vertullo; Ben A Kennedy; Hamish S Bush; Rod S Barrett; David G Lloyd Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Asheesh Bedi; Ramesh C Srinivasan; Michael J Salata; Brian Downie; Jon A Jacobson; Edward M Wojtys Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Peter N Chalmers; Nathan A Mall; Mario Moric; Seth L Sherman; George P Paletta; Brian J Cole; Bernard R Bach Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Rob P A Janssen; Maria J F van der Velden; Huub L M Pasmans; Harm A G M Sala Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Leonardo José Bernades Albertoni; Pedro Debieux; Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Franciozi; João Victor Novaretti; Geraldo Sergio de Melo Granata; Marcus Vinicius Malheiros Luzo Journal: Acta Ortop Bras Date: 2018 Impact factor: 0.513