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
- 1.8k Downloads
The aim of this study was to examine clinical and patient-reported outcomes as well as return to sport in athletes younger than 25 following ACL reconstruction with either bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) or hamstring (HS) autografts using a matched-pairs case–control experimental design.
Twenty-three matched pairs were obtained based on gender (57% women), age (18 ± 3 years BTB vs. 18 ± 3 HS), and length of follow-up (5 ± 2 years BTB vs. 4 ± 2 HS). Patients reported participating in very strenuous (soccer, basketball, etc.) or strenuous (skiing, tennis, etc.) sporting activity 4–7 times/week prior to their knee injury. Patient-reported outcomes included return to play data, the IKDC, SAS, ADLS, and SF-36 forms. Clinical outcomes included knee range of motion, laxity, and hop/jump testing.
The majority of patients in both groups were able to participate in very strenuous or strenuous sporting activity 4–7 times per week following surgery [17 (74%) BTB vs. 16 (70%) HS]. However, only 13 (57%) of the BTB subjects and 10 (44%) of the HS patients were able to return to pre-injury activity levels (P = n.s.). HS patients showed higher ADLS (P < 0.01) and SAS (P < 0.01) scores, better restoration of extension (P < 0.05), and less radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis (P < 0.05).
Hamstring and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts allow approximately 70% of young athletes to return to some degree of strenuous or very strenuous sporting activity, while only approximately half of patients were able to return to their pre-injury sporting activity level. Hamstring grafts lead to better preservation of extension, higher patient-reported outcome scores, and less radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis.
Level of evidence
Therapeutic (case–control study) Level III.
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Bone-patellar tendon-bone graft Hamstring graft Return to sport
- 5.Biau DJ, Katsahian S, Kartus J, Harilainen A, Feller JA, Sajovic M, Ejerhed L, Zaffagnini S, Röpke M, Nizard R (2009) Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts for reconstructing the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis based on individual patient data. Am J Sports Med 37:2470–2478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Holm I, Oiestad BE, Risberg MA, Aune AK (2010) 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. Am J Sports Med 38:448–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kartus J, Magnusson L, Stener S, Brandsson S, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J (1999) Complications following arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A 2–5-year follow-up of 604 patients with special emphasis on anterior knee pain. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 7:2–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Mohtadi NG, Chan DS, Dainty KN, Whelan DB (2011) Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD005960Google Scholar
- 25.Noyes FR, Berrios-Torres S, Barber-Westin SD, Heckmann TP (2000) Prevention of permanent arthrofibrosis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction alone or combined with associated procedures: a prospective study in 443 knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 8:196–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Sajovic M, Strahovnik A, Dernovsek MZ, Skaza K (2011) Quality of life and clinical outcome comparison of semitendinosus and gracilis tendon versus patellar tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an 11-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 39:2161–2169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar