Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Lack of consensus regarding pretensioning and preconditioning protocols for soft tissue graft reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament

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

Abstract

Purpose

Pretensioning and preconditioning of soft tissue grafts are often performed to obviate graft stress relaxation and elongation due to viscoelastic graft properties following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. It was hypothesized that a consensus could be identified in the current literature regarding the biomechanical effects and clinical benefits of an optimal protocol.

Methods

A systematic electronic literature search was performed by two independent reviewers to identify relevant publications. Only studies describing and/or comparing pretensioning or preconditioning protocols of soft tissue grafts or equivalent animal research models were eligible for inclusion. Study design, graft type, and protocol, including method, magnitude, mode (cyclic and/or static loading), and duration of load application, were compared. Research results and clinical conclusions were also evaluated for each study.

Results

Five studies, including four in vitro biomechanical investigations and one histological analysis of patient tissue, met the predefined criteria for inclusion. Studies described numerous pretensioning and/or preconditioning protocols with varying force, time, and application modalities for multiple soft tissue graft types and animal models. The majority of studies (80 %) utilized at least one pretensioning or preconditioning protocol between 80 and 89 N, while only one study investigated substantially higher loads (500 N).

Conclusions

Despite common trends demonstrating the effects of pretensioning and preconditioning, no clear consensus regarding an optimal protocol, magnitude, or modality could be identified within the currently available relevant literature. Further multidisciplinary research is required before an optimal or consensus protocol can be established for soft tissue ACL reconstruction. Regardless, the current biomechanical literature demonstrates the potential clinically beneficial effects of pretensioning and preconditioning, including reduced graft elongation and greater preservation of graft tension and stiffness following fixation.

Level of evidence

Systematic review, Level II.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aga C, Rasmussen MT, Smith SD, Jansson KS, LaPrade RF, Engebretsen L, Wijdicks CA (2013) Biomechanical comparison of interference screws and combination screw and sheath devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the tibial side. Am J Sports Med 41:841–848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blythe A, Tasker T, Zioupos P (2006) ACL graft constructs: in-vitro fatigue testing highlights the occurrence of irrecoverable lengthening and the need for adequate (pre)conditioning to avert the recurrence of knee instability. Technol Health Care 14:335–347

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ejerhed L, Kartus J, Köhler K, Sernert N, Brandsson S, Karlsson J (2001) Preconditioning patellar tendon autografts in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:6–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Elias JJ, Kilambi S, Ciccone WJ 2nd (2009) Tension level during preconditioning influences hamstring tendon graft properties. Am J Sports Med 37:334–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elias JJ, Rai SP, Ciccone WJ 2nd (2008) In vitro comparison of tension and stiffness between hamstring tendon and patella tendon grafts. J Orthop Res 26:1506–1511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Figueroa D, Calvo R, Vaisman A, Meleán P, Figueroa F (2010) Effect of tendon tensioning: an in vitro study in porcine extensor tendons. Knee 17:245–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fu FH, Bennett CH, Lattermann C, Ma CB (1999) Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part 1: biology and biomechanics of reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 27:821–830

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fu FH, Bennett CH, Ma CB, Menetrey J, Lattermann C (2000) Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part II. Operative procedures and clinical correlations. Am J Sports Med 28:124–130

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Graf BK, Henry J, Rothenberg M, Vanderby R (1994) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon. An ex vivo study of wear-related damage and failure at the femoral tunnel. Am J Sports Med 22:131–135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Graf BK, Vanderby R Jr, Ulm MJ, Rogalski RP, Thielke RJ (1994) Effect of preconditioning on the viscoelastic response of primate patellar tendon. Arthroscopy 10:90–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guillard C, Lintz F, Odri GA, Vogeli D, Colin F, Collon S, Chappard D, Gouin F, Robert H (2012) Effects of graft pretensioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2208–2213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harner CD, Fu FH, Irrgang JJ, Vogrin TM (2001) Anterior and posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the new millennium: a global perspective. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:330–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org

  14. Kousa P, Jarvinen TLN, Vihavainen M, Kannus P, Järvinen M (2003) The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part I: femoral site. Am J Sports Med 31:174–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee CH, Huang GS, Chao KH, Wu SS, Chen Q (2005) Differential pretensions of a flexor tendon graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison in a porcine knee model. Arthroscopy 21:540–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB (2009) The first results from the Danish ACL reconstruction registry: epidemiologic and 2 year follow-up results from 5,818 knee ligament reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:117–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Middleton KK, Hamilton T, Irrgang JJ, Karlsson J, Harner CD, Fu FH (2014) Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction: a global perspective. Part 1. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1467–1482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Milano G, Mulas PD, Ziranu F, Piras S, Manunta A, Fabbriciani C (2006) Comparison between different femoral fixation devices for ACL reconstruction with doubled hamstring tendon graft: a biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy 22:660–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nurmi JT, Kannus P, Sievänen H, Järvelä T, Järvinen M, Järvinen TL (2004) Interference screw fixation of soft tissue grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: part 2: effect of preconditioning on graft tension during and after screw insertion. Am J Sports Med 32:418–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Persson A, Fjeldsgaard K, Gjertsen JE, 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: study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004–2012. Am J Sports Med 42:285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Petre BM, Smith SD, Jansson KS, de Meijer PP, Hackett TR, LaPrade RF, Wijdicks CA (2013) Femoral cortical suspension devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med 41:416–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Lind M (2014) Comparison of hamstring tendon and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a nationwide population-based cohort study: results from the Danish registry of knee ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 42:278–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schatzmann L, Brunner P, Stäubli HU (1998) Effect of cyclic preconditioning on the tensile properties of human quadriceps tendons and patellar ligaments. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6(Suppl 1):S56–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shelton WR, Fagan BC (2011) Autografts commonly used in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19:259–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shino K, Mae T, Maeda A, Miyama T, Shinjo H, Kawakami H (2002) Graft fixation with predetermined tension using a new device, the double spike plate. Arthroscopy 18:908–911

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Walsh MP, Wijdicks CA, Parker JB, Hapa O, LaPrade RF (2009) A comparison between a retrograde interference screw, suture button, and combined fixation on the tibial side in an all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical study in a porcine model. Am J Sports Med 37:160–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yasuda K, Tsujino J, Tanabe Y, Kaneda K (1997) Effects of initial graft tension on clinical outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Autogenous doubled hamstring tendons connected in series with polyester tapes. Am J Sports Med 25:99–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert F. LaPrade.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jisa, K.A., Williams, B.T., Jaglowski, J.R. et al. Lack of consensus regarding pretensioning and preconditioning protocols for soft tissue graft reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 2884–2891 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3530-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3530-y

Keywords

Navigation