Skip to main content


Log in

Quadriceps tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with high revision rates: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Registry

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

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR to this article was published on 02 April 2020



The quadriceps tendon (QT) has recently gained interest as an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) autograft. There is a paucity of data from large cohort studies on failures and revision rates after ACLR using the QT graft. The purpose of the present study is to use the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry (DKRR) to compare revision rates, objective knee stability and subjective clinical outcomes in patients who have undergone ACLR with QT, hamstring tendon (HT), and patellar tendon (PT) as a graft for ACLR. It was hypothesized that QT autografts would result in similar objective knee stability and revision rates as HT and PT autografts.


Data on primary ACLRs in the DKRR from 2005 through 2017 were analyzed. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS), Tegner activity scale scores, sagittal knee laxity, pivot-shift tests at 1-year follow-up and revision rates at 2-year follow-up were compared for the three autograft cohorts.


A total of 531 QT, 14,213 HT and 1835 PT ACLR were registered in the DKLR between 2005 and 2017. QT autograft was associated with statistically significant increased laxity (1.8 mm) compared to HT autograft (1.5 mm) (p < 0.001) and more positive pivot shift. There was a significant higher revision rate for QT (4.7%), compared to PT (1.5%) and HT (2.3%) autografts at 2-year follow-up (p < 0.002).


Quadriceps tendon autografts for ACLR was associated with higher revision rates than HT and PT grafts. QT graft was also associated with small increased objective knee laxity and more positive pivot shift than HT and PT grafts.

Level of evidence


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


  1. Andrikoula S, Tokis A, Vasiliadis HS, Georgoulis A (2006) The extensor mechanism of the knee joint: an anatomical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(3):214–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fauno P, Rahr-Wagner L, Lind M (2014) Risk for revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is higher among adolescents: results from the Danish Registry of knee ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med 2(10):2325967114552405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fink C, Herbort M, Abermann E, Hoser C (2014) Minimally invasive harvest of a quadriceps tendon graft with or without a bone block. Arthrosc Tech 4:e509–e513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Freedman KB, D'Amato MJ, Nedeff DD, Kaz A, Bach BR Jr (2003) Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a metaanalysis comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Am J Sports Med 31(1):2–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Geib TM, Shelton WR, Phelps RA, Clark L (2009) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadriceps tendon autograft: intermediate-term outcome. Arthroscopy 25(12):1408–1414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, Lind M, Forssblad M, Albrektsen G, Drogset JO (2014) Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med 42(10):2319–2328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gorschewsky O, Klakow A, Putz A, Mahn H, Neumann W (2007) Clinical comparison of the autologous quadriceps tendon (BQT) and the autologous patella tendon (BPTB) for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(11):1284–1292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hamrin Senorski E, Seil R, Svantesson E, Feller JA, Webster KE, Engebretsen L, Spindler K, Siebold R, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K (2018) "I never made it to the pros.." Return to sport and becoming an elite athlete after pediatric and adolescent anterior cruciate ligament injury-Current evidence and future directions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(4):1011–1018

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hardy A, Casabianca L, Andrieu K, Baverel L, Noailles T, Junior-French-Arthroscopy-Society (2017) Complications following harvesting of patellar tendon or hamstring tendon grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: systematic review of literature. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103(8S):S245–S248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Herbort M, Michel P, Raschke MJ, Vogel N, Schulze M, Zoll A, Fink C, Petersen W, Domnick C (2017) Should the ipsilateral hamstrings be used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the case of medial collateral ligament insufficiency? Biomechanical investigation regarding dynamic stabilization of the medial compartment by the hamstring muscles. Am J Sports Med 45(4):819–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Iriuchishima T, Shirakura K, Yorifuji H, Fu FH (2012) Anatomical evaluation of the rectus femoris tendon and its related structures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(11):1665–1668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jakob RP, Staubli HU, Deland JT (1987) Grading the pivot shift. Objective tests with implications for treatment. J Bone Jt Surg Br 69(2):294–299

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kartus J, Ejerhed L, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J (1999) The localization of the infrapatellar nerves in the anterior knee region with special emphasis on central third patellar tendon harvest: a dissection study on cadaver and amputated specimens. Arthroscopy 15(6):577–586

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee JK, Lee S, Lee MC (2016) Outcomes of anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: bone-quadriceps tendon graft versus double-bundle hamstring tendon graft. Am J Sports Med 44(9):2323–2329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(2):117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB (2012) Incidence and outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish registry for knee ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 40(7):1551–1557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lippe J, Armstrong A, Fulkerson JP (2012) Anatomic guidelines for harvesting a quadriceps free tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 28(7):980–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lund B, Nielsen T, Fauno P, Christiansen SE, Lind M (2014) Is quadriceps tendon a better graft choice than patellar tendon? A prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy 30(5):593–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Magnussen RA, Trojani C, Granan LP, Neyret P, Colombet P, Engebretsen L, Wright RW, Kaeding CC, Group M, Group SFARA (2015) Patient demographics and surgical characteristics in ACL revision: a comparison of French, Norwegian, and North American cohorts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(8):2339–2348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Maletis GB, Chen J, Inacio MCS, Love RM, Funahashi TT (2017) 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 45(8):1837–1844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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:CD005960

    Google Scholar 

  22. Paterno MV, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, Rauh MJ, Hewett TE (2013) Altered postural sway persists after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport. Gait Posture 38(1):136–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Prentice HA, Lind M, Mouton C, Persson A, Magnusson H, Gabr A, Seil R, Engebretsen L, Samuelsson K, Karlsson J, Forssblad M, Haddad FS, Spalding T, Funahashi TT, Paxton LW, Maletis GB (2018) Patient demographic and surgical characteristics in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a description of registries from six countries. Br J Sports Med 52(11):716–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Lind MC, Pedersen AB (2013) Validation of 14,500 operated knees registered in the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register: registration completeness and validity of key variables. Clin Epidemiol 5:219–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Lind MC (2013) Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. Arthroscopy 29(1):98–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S (2003) Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Runer A, Wierer G, Herbst E, Hepperger C, Herbort M, Gfoller P, Hoser C, Fink C (2018) There is no difference between quadriceps- and hamstring tendon autografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 2-year patient-reported outcome study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(2):605–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Samuelsen BT, Webster KE, Johnson NR, Hewett TE, Krych AJ (2017) 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 475(10):2459–2468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shani RH, Umpierez E, Nasert M, Hiza EA, Xerogeanes J (2016) Biomechanical comparison of quadriceps and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 32(1):71–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sheean AJ, Musahl V, Slone HS, Xerogeanes JW, Milinkovic D, Fink C, Hoser C, International Quadriceps Tendon Interest G (2018) Quadriceps tendon autograft for arthroscopic knee ligament reconstruction: use it now, use it often. Br J Sports Med 52(11):698–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Slone HS, Ashford WB, Xerogeanes JW (2016) Minimally invasive quadriceps tendon harvest and graft preparation for all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech 5(5):e1049–e1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    Google Scholar 

Download references


No external funding was recieved for the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Lind.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Regional Centre for Clinical Quality Development and the National Data Protection Agency approval number 1-16-02-65-17).

Informed consent

No written consent is necessary in Denmark for studies based on data from national board of health approved national healthcare registries.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lind, M., Strauss, M.J., Nielsen, T. et al. Quadriceps tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with high revision rates: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Registry. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28, 2163–2169 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: