Advertisement

Outcomes Following ACL Reconstruction Based on Graft Type: Are all Grafts Equivalent?

  • Matthew WidnerEmail author
  • Mark Dunleavy
  • Scott Lynch
ACL: Risk Factors, Outcomes, Preventions (R Gallo, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on ACL: Risk Factors, Outcomes, Preventions

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is one of the most common orthopedic procedures performed, accounting for over 200,000 cases annually. Despite the high prevalence, there is still much debate as to the optimal graft choice. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current literature and discuss the reported outcomes for the most common graft choices.

Recent Findings

The most common autografts being used include bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), hamstring tendon (HT), and quadriceps tendon (QT). Hamstring tendon might have a slightly higher re-tear rate when compared with BPTB (2.84 versus 2.80). However, BPTB has a higher rate of anterior knee and kneeling pain in the short- and mid-term follow-up. This has not been shown to be the case in long-term follow-up. Allograft is a viable option for revisions and primaries in patients greater than 35 years old; however, re-tear rate increases significantly in younger patients.

Summary

ACL reconstruction graft choice is a highly studied and yet still exceedingly debated topic. Most large studies report either no significant difference or a small difference in failure rate and outcome scores between the different autograft choices. Allografts have been demonstrated to have an increased risk of failure in younger athletes and should be reserved for revision cases and those aged 35 years and older. Graft choice should ultimately be decided upon based on surgeon comfort and experience and individual patient characteristics.

Keywords

ACL reconstruction Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft Hamstring autograft Quadriceps autograft ACL graft choice 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Matthew Widner, Mark Dunleavy, and Scott Lynch declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Kaeding CC, Léger-St-Jean B, Magnussen RA. Epidemiology and diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Clin Sports Med. 2017;36(1):1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sanders TL, Pareek A, Kremers HM, Bryan AJ, Levy BA, Stuart MJ, et al. Long-term follow-up of isolated ACL tears treated without ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(2):493–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Eck CF, Limpisvasti O, ElAttrache NS. Is there a role for internal bracing and repair of the anterior cruciate ligament? A systematic literature review. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(9):2291–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dabis J, Wilson A. Repair and augmentation with internal brace in the multiligament injured knee. Clin Sports Med. 2019 Apr;38(2):275–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shelton WR, Fagan BC. Autografts commonly used in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(5):259–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delay BS, Smolinski RJ, Wind WM, Bowman DS. Current practices and opinions in ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation: results of a survey of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. Am J Knee Surg. 2001 Spring;14(2):85–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim HS, Seon JK, Jo AR. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2013;25(4):165–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Tibor L, Chan PH, Funahashi TT, Wyatt R, Maletis GB, Inacio MC. Surgical technique trends in primary ACL reconstruction from 2007 to 2014. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(13):1079–89.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00881Surgical techniques regarding ACL reconstruction are constantly in flux. This large retrospective review of over 21,686 community cases revealed that although femoral drilling technique has largely changed over the 7-year study period, the incidence rates of specific graft choice remained steady. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagda SH, Altobelli GG, Bowdry KA, Brewster CE, Lombardo SJ. Cost analysis of outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: autograft versus allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(5):1418–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buck BE, Malinin T, Brown MD. Bone transplantation and human immunodeficiency virus. An estimate of risk of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(240):129–36.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ng VY. Risk of disease transmission with bone allograft. Orthopedics. 2012;35(8):679–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bottoni CR, Smith EL, Shaha J, Shaha SS, Raybin SG, Tokish JM, et al. Autograft versus allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized clinical study with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(10):2501–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Middleton KK, Hamilton T, Irrgang JJ, Karlsson J, Harner CD, Fu FH. Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction: a global perspective. Part 1. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(7):1467–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woo SL, Hollis JM, Adams DJ, Lyon RM, Takai S. Tensile properties of the human femur-anterior cruciate ligament- tibia complex: the effects of specimen age and orientation. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19(3):217–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cooper DE. Biomechanical properties of the central third patellar tendon graft: effect of rotation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6(suppl 1):S16–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shani RH, Umpierez E, Nasert M, Hiza EA, Xerogeanes J. Biomechanical comparison of quadriceps and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(1):71–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Woo SL, Debski RE, Withrow JD, Janaushek MA. Biomechanics of knee ligaments. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27:533–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stein DA, Hunt SA, Rosen JE, Sherman OH. The incidence and outcome of patella fractures after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(6):578–83.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caborn DN, Urban WP Jr, Johnson DL, Nyland J, Pienkowski D. Biomechanical comparison between BioScrew and titanium alloy interference screws for bone-patellar tendon-bone graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(2):229–32.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frank CB, Jackson DW. The science of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1556–76.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nawabi DH, van der List JP, Williams A. Technical considerations for patellar tendon harvest. In: Nakamura N, Zaffagnini S, Marx R, Musahl V, editors. Controversies in the technical aspects of ACL reconstruction. Berlin: Springer; 2017.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Webster KE, Feller JA, Hartnett N, Leigh WB, Richmond AK. Comparison of patellar tendon and hamstring tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):83–90 This long-term follow-up provided level one data examining the results of patellar tendon vs. hamstring tendon grafts at 15 years. Although some graft differences were observed in the author’s earlier reviews, it appears that they disappeared at 15 years, making the two graft choices quite comparable. PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamner DL, Brown CH Jr, Steiner ME, Hecker AT, Hayes WC. Hamstring tendon grafts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: biomechanical evaluation of the use of multiple strands and tensioning techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(4):549–57.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Conte EJ, Hyatt AE, Gatt CJ Jr, Dhawan A. Hamstring autograft size can be predicted and is a potential risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(7):882–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kousa P, Jarvinen TL, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, Jarvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: I. Femoral site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31:174–81.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kousa P, Jarvinen TL, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, Jarvinen M. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: II. Tibial site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31:182–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, Hidaka C, Warren RF. Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel: a biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1795–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Hardy A, Casabianca L, Andrieu K, Baverel L, Noailles T, Junior French Arthroscopy Society. Complications following harvesting of patellar tendon or hamstring tendon grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Systematic review of literature. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(8):S245–8 A large systematic review was performed including data from 36 articles and found that the main complication of hamstring harvesting was damage to the infrapatellar branches of the saphenous nerve, while patellar tendon harvesting led to significant numbers of anterior knee pain. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McRae S, Leiter J, McCormack R, Old J, MacDonald P. Ipsilateral versus contralateral hamstring grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2492–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Konrath JM, Vertullo CJ, Kennedy BA, Bush HS, Barrett RS, Lloyd DG. Morphologic characteristics and strength of the hamstring muscles remain altered at 2 years after use of a hamstring tendon graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(10):2589–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Noyes FR, Butler DL, Grood ES, Zernicke RF, Hefzy MS. Biomechanical analysis of human ligament grafts used in knee-ligament repairs and reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(3):344–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Staubli HU, Schatzmann L, Brunner P, Rincon L, Nolte LP. Mechanical tensile properties of the quadriceps tendon and patellar ligament in young adults. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27:27–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Van Eck CF, Schreiber VM, Mejia HA, Samuelsson K, van Dijk CN, Karlsson J, et al. “Anatomic” anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of surgical techniques and reporting of surgical data. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(9 suppl):S2–S12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    • Hurley ET, Calvo-Gurry M, Withers D, Farrington SK, Moran R, Moran CJ. Quadriceps tendon autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(5):1690–8 Quadriceps tendon continues to emerge as a viable graft option in ACL reconstruction. This recent study included data from 15 clinical trials with over 1,900 patients, and demonstrated comparable knee stability, functional outcomes, and complications with patellar tendon and hamstring tendon grafts. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maletis GB, Inacio MC, Funahashi TT. Analysis of 16,192 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from a community-based registry. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(9):2090–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wasserstein D, Sheth U, Cabrera A, Spindler KP. A systematic review of failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft compared with allograft in young patients. Sports Health. 2015;7(3):207–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mardani-Kivi M, Karimi-Mobarakeh M, Keyhani S, Saheb-Ekhtiari K, Hashemi-Motlagh K, Sarvi A. Hamstring tendon autograft versus fresh-frozen tibialis posterior allograft in primary arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study with three to six years follow-up. Int Orthop. 2016;40(9):1905–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Duchman KR, Lynch TS, Spindler KP. Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament surgery: who gets what and why? Clin Sports Med. 2017;36(1):25–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maletis GB, Chen J, Inacio MCS, Love RM, Funahashi TT. Increased risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with soft tissue allografts compared with autografts: graft processing and time make a difference. Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jul;45(8):1837–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    • Condello V, Zdanowicz U, Di Matteo B, Spalding T, Gelber PE, Adravanti P, et al. Allograft tendons are a safe and effective option for revision ACL reconstruction: a clinical review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(6):1771–81 Although allograft tendons have a reputation for being a weaker graft choice, they are often considered viable options in the revision setting, especially in older patients. This updated clinical review provides perspective on how to best optimize results using allograft by avoiding excessive irradiation and only selecting them in appropriate settings. PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    MARS Group. Effect of graft choice on the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Cohort. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    • Samuelson BT, Webster KE, Johnson NR, Hewett TE, Krych AJ. Hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon autograft for ACL reconstruction: is there a difference in graft failure rate? A meta-analysis of 47,613 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(10):2459–68 In this large meta-analysis of primary ACL reconstructions, differences in the results after short- to mid-term follow-up were examined and revealed low failure rates in both groups and minimal differences with regards to laxity, although hamstring autografts did fail at a higher rate than patellar tendon. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    • Mouarbes D, Menetrey J, Marot V, Courtot L, Berard E, Cavaignac E. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes for quadriceps tendon autograft versus bone-patellar tendon-bone and hamstring-tendon autografts. Am J Sports Med. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518825340Updated systematic review comparing the three main choices in autograft selection. After examining 27 studies with over 2800 patients, quadriceps tendon showed comparable clinical and functional outcomes with significantly less harvest site pain compared with patellar tendon, and better functional scores compared with hamstring tendons.
  44. 44.
    Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Reinke EK, Huston LJ, MOON Consortium, Spindler KP. Risk factors and predictors of subsequent ACL injury in either knee after ACL reconstruction: prospective analysis of 2488 primary ACL reconstructions from the MOON cohort. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(7):1583–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hamrin Senorski E, Svantesson E, Baldari A, Ayeni OR, Engebretsen L, Franceschi F, et al. Factors that affect patient reported outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-a systematic review of the Scandinavian knee ligament registers. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(7):410–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and RehabilitationPennsylvania State University College of MedicineHersheyUSA

Personalised recommendations