Device-assisted tensioning is associated with lower rates of graft failure when compared to manual tensioning in ACL reconstruction
To describe (1) the current graft tensioning practices in ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and, (2) the failure rates with the use of manual tensioning, or device-assisted tensioning at the time of graft fixation.
The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched independently by two reviewers from database inception to search date on January 21, 2017. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting graft tensioning method and rate of graft failure. The definition of graft failure used was: (1) side-to-side instrumented laxity > 5 mm, (2) Lachman 2 +, (3) positive pivot-shift testing, (4) MRI-confirmed graft rupture or, (5) need for revision surgery.
A total of 3379 patients and 3380 knees were treated with ACL reconstruction and followed for an average of 41.7 months (range 4–145 months). ACLR with manual tensioning was performed on 1518 (51.9%) patients and device-assisted tensioning was performed on 1802 (48.1%) patients. The average knee position reported was 29.2° in single-bundle ACLR and 22.9° in double-bundle ACLR. The median amount of tension used in manual tensioning was ‘maximum manual tension’ and 50 N in device-assisted tensioning. Overall, the failure rate in studies reporting manual tensioning was 8.9% compared to 4.3% in device-assisted tensioning.
Both manual tensioning and device-assisted tensioning are associated with low overall failure rates (< 10%) in ACLR; however, there is a higher rate of reported failure with manual tensioning compared to device-assisted tensioning. These findings highlight the need to investigate variations in graft tensioning practice, such as specific tension devices and their parameters, with high-quality, randomized controlled trials to elucidate details of their clinical impact.
Level of evidence
Level IV, systematic review of level I–IV studies.
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) Reconstruction Graft Tension Manual Device
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
This is a systematic review of the literature and no ethics approval is required.
For this type of study informed consent is not required.
- 2.Austin JC, Phornphutkul C, Wojtys EM (2007) Loss of knee extension after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: effects of knee position and graft tensioning. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(7):1565–1574Google Scholar
- 21.Thompson DM, Hull ML, Howell SM (2006) Does a tensioning device pinned to the tibia improve knee anterior–posterior load-displacement compared to manual tensioning of the graft following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A cadaveric study of two tibial fixation devices. J Orthop Res 24(9):1832–1841CrossRefGoogle Scholar