Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Low re-rupture rate with BPTB autograft and semitendinosus gracilis autograft with preserved insertions in ACL reconstruction surgery in sports persons

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the results of bone-patellar tendon-bone graft (BPTB), semitendinosus–gracilis graft with preserved insertions (STGPI) and semitendinosus–gracilis-free graft (STGF) in terms of graft failure, objective mechanical stability, functional outcome, and return to sports in elite and recreational sports persons. It was hypothesized that the STGPI graft provided superior outcome as compared to the other two grafts.

Methods

Two hundred and forty-nine elite and recreational players who underwent ACL reconstruction surgery, with BPTB graft (N = 80), STGPI graft (N = 85), and STGF graft (N = 84) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years, were assessed using clinical tests, knee arthrometer (KT 1000™), single-leg hop test, Lysholm knee score, Tegner’s activity scale, and return to sports. Groups were matched in terms of age, gender, mode of injury, side involved, the level of sports, associated injuries, and mean follow-up.

Results

The median age of the patients was 24 years (range 16–46 years), with 227 males and 22 females, with a mean follow-up of 61.8 ± 25.9 months. At the final follow-up, the mean side-to-side difference by KT 1000™ was significantly superior in BPTB group (1.4 ± 2.1 mm) as compared to STGPI (1.9 ± 2.0 mm) and STGF group (2.5 ± 2.0 mm) (p = 0.002). The mean Lysholm knee score, Limb symmetry index (LSI) using single-leg hop test and the mean difference in pre-injury and post-surgery level of Tegner’s activity scale were not significantly different. The rate of graft failure was significantly higher in STGF group (7.1%) as compared to BPTB (1.2%) and STGPI (1.2%) groups (p = 0.043).

Conclusion

BPTB graft is a better graft in terms of mechanical stability than STGPI and STGF grafts. STGPI graft and BPTB graft are superior to STGF graft in terms of graft failure rate. However, there is no statistically significant difference amongst the three grafts in terms of return to sports and clinical tests of instability. STGPI graft is another option in the clinical setting with low graft failure rate like that of BPTB graft and with the added advantage of not having significant donor site morbidity.

Level of evidence

III.

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. Aglietti P, Giron F, Buzzi R, Biddau F, Sasso F (2004) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: bone-patellar tendon-bone compared with double semitendinosus and gracilis tendon grafts. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86:2143–2155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beaufils P, Gaudot F, Drain O, Boisrenoult P, Pujol N (2011) Mini-invasive technique for bone patellar tendon bone harvesting: its superiority in reducing anterior knee pain following ACL reconstruction. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 4:45–51

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Fleming BC, Kannus P, Kaplan M, Samani J, Renström P (2002) Anterior cruciate ligament replacement: comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts with two-strand hamstring grafts. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84:1503–1513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bourke HE, Salmon LJ, Waller A, Patterson V, Pinczewski LA (2012) Survival of the anterior cruciate ligament graft and the contralateral ACL at a minimum of 15 years. Am J Sports Med 40:1985–1992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brand J, Weiler A, Caborn D, Johnson D, Brown C (2000) Graft fixation in cruciate ligament surgery: current concepts. Am J Sports Med 28:761–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buck B, Resnick L, Shah S, Malinin T (1990) Human immunodeficiency virus cultured from bone: implications for transplantation. ClinOrthopRelat Res 251:249–253

    Google Scholar 

  7. Della Villa F, Ricci M, Persida F, Filardo G, Gamberini J, Caminati D, Della Villa S (2015) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and rehabilitation: predictors of functional outcome. Joints 3(4):179–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. de Valk EJ, Moen MH, Winters M, Bakker EW, Tamminga R, van der Hoeven H (2013) Preoperative patient and injury factors of successful rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with single-bundle techniques. Arthroscopy 29:1879–1895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eajazi A, Madadi F, Madadi F, Boreiri M (2013) Comparison of different methods of femoral fixation anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Med Iran 51(7):444–448

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Evans S, Shaginaw J, Bartolozzi A (2014) ACL reconstruction—it’s all about timing. Int J Sports PhysTher9(2):268–273

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gifstad T, Sole A, Strand T, Uppheim G, Grontvedt T, Drogset JO (2013) Long-term follow-up of patellar tendon grafts or hamstring tendon grafts in endoscopic ACL reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:576–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gupta R, Bahadur R, Malhotra A, Masih GD, Gupta P (2016) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft with preserved insertions. Arthrosc Tech 5:e269–e274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta R, Kapoor D, Kapoor L, Malhotra A, Masih GD, Kapoor A, Joshi S (2016) Immediate post-operative pain in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery with bone patellar tendon bone graft versus hamstring graft. J Orthop Surg Res 11:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gupta RK, Aggarwal S, Aggarwal V, Garg SK, Kumar S (2010) Preserved insertions of the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons (STG) in ACL reconstruction: a new surgical technique with preliminary results. Current Orthop Practice 21:409–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hefti E, Müller W, Jakob R, Stäubli H-U (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Heijne A, Hagstromer M, Werner S (2015) A two- and five-year follow-up of clinical outcome after ACL reconstruction using BPTB or hamstring tendon grafts: a prospective intervention outcome study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:799–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Järvelä T, Kannus P, Järvinen M (2000) Anterior knee pain 7 years after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a bone patellar tendon bone autograft. Scand J Med Sci Sports 10:221–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaeding CC, Aros B, Pedroza A, Pifel E, Amendola A, Andrish JT, Spindler KP (2011) Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort. Sports Health 3(1):73–81

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kautzner J, Kos P, Hanus M, Trc T, Havlas V (2015) A comparison of ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon versus hamstring autograft in female patients: a prospective randomised study. Int Orthop 39:125–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kraeutler MJ, Bravman JT, McCarty EC (2013) Bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft versus allograft in outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction a meta-analysis of 5182 patients. Am J Sports Med 41:2439–2448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leys T, Salmon L, Waller A, Linklater J, Pinczewski L (2012) Clinical results and risk factors for reinjury 15 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction a prospective study of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts. Am J Sports Med 40:595–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lund B, Nielsen T, Faunø P, Christiansen SE, Lind M (2014) Is quadriceps tendon a better graft choice than patellar tendon? A prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy 30:593–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marimuthu K, Joshi N, Sharma M, Sharma CS, Bhargava R, Rajawat AS, Rangdal SS (2011) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the medial third of the patellar tendon. J Orthop Surg 19:221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mascarenhas R, Tranovich MJ, Kropf EJ, Fu FH, Harner CD (2012) Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the young athlete: a retrospective matched analysis with 2–10 year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1520–1527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Persson A, Fjeldsgaard K, Gjertsen J-E, Kjellsen AB, Engebretsen L, Hole RM, Fevang JM (2014) 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. Am J Sports Med 42:285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pinczewski LA, Lyman J, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Roe J, Linklater J (2007) A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft a controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med 35:564–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reinhardt KR, Hetsroni I, Marx RG (2010) Graft selection for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a level I systematic review comparing failure rates and functional outcomes. OrthopClin North Am 41:249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, Hidaka C, Warren RF (1993) Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel. A biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Jt Surg Am 75:1795–1803

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rodriguez-Merchan EC (2015) Evidence-based ACL reconstruction. Arch Bone Jt Surg 3:9

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Shaerf DA, Pastides PS, Sarraf KM, Willis-Owen CA (2014) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction best practice: a review of graft choice. World J Orthop 5(1):23–29

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Shino K, Nakata K, Horibe S, Inoue M, Nakagawa S (1993) Quantitative evaluation after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction allograft versus autograft. Am J Sports Med 21:609–616

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tambe A, Godsiff S, Mulay S, Joshi M (2006) Anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency: does delay in index surgery affect outcome in recreational athletes. Int Orthop 30:104–109

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:42–49

    Google Scholar 

  36. Thomeé R, Neeter C, Gustavsson A, Thomeé P, Augustsson J, Eriksson B, Karlsson J (2012) Variability in leg muscle power and hop performance after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1143–1151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Valeriani M, Restuccia D, Lazzaro V, Franceschi F, Fabbriciani C, Tonali P (1999) Clinical and neurophysiological abnormalities before and after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee. Acta Neurol Scand 99:303–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Wagner M, Kääb MJ, Schallock J, Haas NP, Weiler A (2005) Hamstring tendon versus patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using biodegradable interference fit fixation a prospective matched-group analysis. Am J Sports Med 33:1327–1336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Weiler A, Scheffler S, Südkamp N (2000) Current aspects of anchoring hamstring tendon transplants in cruciate ligament surgery. Der Chirurg ZeitschriftfüralleGebiete der operativenMedizen 71:1034

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Xie X, Xiao Z, Li Q, Zhu B, Chen J, Chen H, Yang F, Chen Y, Lai Q, Liu X (2015) Increased incidence of osteoarthritis of knee joint after ACL reconstruction with bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts than hamstring autografts: a meta-analysis of 1,443 patients at a minimum of 5 years. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:149–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College Hospital, Chandigarh, 160030, India

    Ravi Gupta, Munish Sood, Anubhav Malhotra, Gladson David Masih, Anil Kapoor, Mukta Raghav & Mehar Dhillon

Authors
  1. Ravi Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Munish Sood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anubhav Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gladson David Masih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anil Kapoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mukta Raghav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mehar Dhillon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ravi Gupta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article was done by following all ethical guidelines on human research.

Funding

This is to certify that no funding was received.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, R., Sood, M., Malhotra, A. et al. Low re-rupture rate with BPTB autograft and semitendinosus gracilis autograft with preserved insertions in ACL reconstruction surgery in sports persons. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26, 2381–2388 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4790-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4790-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation