Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This retrospective study compared the results after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using a four-strand hamstring tendon graft (4SHG) versus Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) artificial ligament in 60 patients between January 2003 and July 2004 with a minimum four-year follow-up. The KT-1000 examination, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scoring systems and Lysholm knee scoring scale were used to evaluate the clinical results. The mean side-to-side difference was 2.4 ± 0.5 mm and 1.2 ± 0.3 mm in the 4SHG group and LARS group, respectively (P = 0.013). Although other results of ACL reconstruction, measured by IKDC evaluation, Lysholm scores and Tegner scores, showed using a LARS graft clinically tended to be superior to using a 4SHG, there were no significant differences calculated. Our results suggest that four years after ACL reconstruction using a LARS ligament or 4SHG dramatically improves the function outcome, while the patients in the LARS group displayed a higher knee stability than those in the 4SHG group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Feller J, Webster K, Gavin B (2001) Early post-operative morbidity following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: patellar tendon versus hamstring graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:260–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weiler A, Scheffler S, Hoher J (2002) Transplant selection for primary replacement of the anterior cruciate ligament (in German). Orthopade 31(8):731–740

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Keays S, Bullock-Saxton J, Keays A, Newcombe P (2001) Muscle strength and function before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using semitendinosus and gracilis. Knee 8:229–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dericks G Jr (1995) Ligament advanced reinforcement system anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Op Tech Sports Med 3:187–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lavoie P, Fletcher J, Duval N (2000) Patient satisfaction needs as related to knee stability and objective findings after ACL reconstruction using the LARS artificial ligament. Knee 7:157–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nau T, Lavoie P, Duval N (2002) A new generation of artificial ligaments in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Two-year follow-up of a randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:356–360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Trieb K, Blahovec H, Brand G, Sabeti M, Dominkus M, Kotz R (2004) In vivo and in vitro cellular ingrowth into a new generation of artificial ligaments. Eur Surg Res 36:148–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Talbot M, Berry G, Fernandes J, Ranger P (2004) Knee dislocations: experience at the Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal. Can J Surg 47:20–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rayan F, Bhonsle S, Shukla DD (2009) Clinical, MRI, and arthroscopic correlation in meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Int Orthop 33(1):129–132 Epub 2008 Feb 23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Guo L, Yang L, Wang AM, Wang XY, Dai G (2009) Roentgenographic measurement study for locating femoral insertion site of anterior cruciate ligament: a cadaveric study with X-Caliper. Int Orthop 33(1):133–137 Epub 2008 May 7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zarzycki W, Mazurkiewicz S, Wisniewski P (1999) Research on strength of the grafts that are used in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (in Polish). Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 64:293

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harilainen A, Sandelin J, Jansson KA (2005) Cross-pin femoral fixation versus metal interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendons: results of a controlled prospective randomized study with 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 21(1):25–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carter T, Edinger S (1999) Isokinetic evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: hamstring versus patellar tendon. Arthroscopy 15:169–172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Beard DJ, Anderson JL, Davies S, Price AJ, Dodd CA (2001) Hamstring vs. patella tendon for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomised controlled trail. Knee 8:45–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aune AK, Holm I, Risberg MA, Jensen HK, Steen H (2001) Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft compared with patellar tendon-bone autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A randomized study with two-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 29:722–728

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eriksson K, Anderberg P, Hamberg P, Löfgren AC, Bredenberg M, Westman I, Wredmark T (2001) A comparison of quadruple semitendinosus and patellar tendon grafts in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:348–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pinczewski LA, Deehan DJ, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Clingeleffer A (2002) A five-year comparison of patellar tendon versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 30:523–536

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jansson KA, Linko E, Sandelin J, Harilainen A (2003) A prospective randomized study of patellar versus hamstring tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 31:12–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Otero AL, Hutcheson L (1993) A comparison of the doubled semitendinosus/gracilis and central third of the patellar tendon autografts in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 9:143–148

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Feller JA, Webster KE, Gavin B (2001) Early post-operative morbidity following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: patellar tendon versus hamstring graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:260–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shaieb MD, Kan DM, Chang SK, Marumoto JM, Richardson AB (2002) A prospective randomized comparison of patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 30:214–220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ejerhed L, Kartus J, Sernert N, Köhler K, Karlsson J (2003) Patellar tendon or semitendinosus tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A prospective randomized study with a two-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 31:19–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhao J, He Y, Wang J (2007) Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: four versus eight strands of hamstring tendon graft. Arthroscopy 23:766–770

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Kitamura N, Tanabe Y et al (2004) Anatomic reconstruction of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament using hamstring tendon grafts. Arthroscopy 20:1015–1025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Tanabe Y, Tohyama H (2006) Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy 22:240–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marumo K, Saito M, Yamagishi T, Fujii K (2005) The “ligamentization” process in human anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar and hamstring tendons: a biochemical study. Am J Sports Med 33(8):1166–1173 Epub 2005 Jul 6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dustmann M, Schmidt T, Gangey I, Unterhauser FN, Weiler A, Scheffler SU (2008) The extracellular remodeling of free-soft-tissue autografts and allografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a comparison study in a sheep model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:360–369 Epub 2008 Jan 9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Arthritis Institute, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, Medical College of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, CT, 200233, People’s Republic of China

    Zhong-tang Liu, Xian-long Zhang, Yao Jiang & Bing-Fang Zeng

Authors
  1. Zhong-tang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xian-long Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yao Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bing-Fang Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bing-Fang Zeng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, Zt., Zhang, Xl., Jiang, Y. et al. Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 34, 45–49 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0768-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0768-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation