Hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a long-term follow-up
- 621 Downloads
Surgical reconstruction has been increasingly recommended for the surgical management of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) ruptures. While the choice of tissue graft still remains controversial. Currently both hamstring tendon autograft (HTG) and ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS) artificial ligament are widely used but there are seldom reports on the comparisons of their clinical results. Our study was aimed to assess the effectiveness of these two grafts.
Materials and methods
Thirty-five patients with unilateral PCL rupture were enrolled in this retrospectively study. Sixteen of them received arthroscopically assisted PCL reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts (HTG group) and nineteen using LARS ligaments (LARS group). All cases were followed up for 46–57 months with a mean of 51 months. Follow-up examinations included radiographic assessment, Lysholm score, Tegner score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) rating scales and KT-1000 test.
All patients improved significantly at the final follow-up compared with the examinational results preoperatively and there were no significant differences between HTG group and LARS group with respect to the results of radiographic assessment, Lysholm score, Tegner score, IKDC rating scales and KT-1000 test.
Similar good clinical results were obtained after PCL reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts and LARS ligaments. Both LARS ligament and hamstring tendon autograft are ideal grafts for PCL reconstruction.
KeywordsPosterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Hamstring tendon autograft (HTG) Ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS) Arthroscopic
This work was supported by the clinical foundation of medical association of Zhejiang province (2011ZYC-A024)
- 13.Machotka Z, Scarborough I, Duncan W et al (2010) Anterior cruciate ligament repair with LARS (ligament advanced reinforcement system): a systematic review. BMC Sports Sci, Med Rehabil 2(1):29Google Scholar
- 15.Salim R, Fogagnolo F, Kfuri M 2013 A new simplified Onlay technique for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg. (EFirst)Google Scholar
- 18.Herbort M, Tecklenburg K, Zantop T et al (2013) Single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical cadaveric study of a rectangular quadriceps and bone-patellar tendon–bone graft configuration versus a round hamstring graft. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 29(12):1981–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Hatayama K, Higuchi H, Kimura M et al (2006) A comparison of arthroscopic single-and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: review of 20 cases. Am J orthop (Belle Mead, NJ) 35(12):568–571Google Scholar
- 31.Huang JM, Wang Q, Shen F et al (2010) Cruciate ligament reconstruction using LARS artificial ligament under arthroscopy: 81 cases report. Chin Med J (Engl) 123:160Google Scholar
- 32.Yu S, Dong Q, Wang Y et al (2008) Histological characteristics and ultrastructure of polyethylene terephthalate LARS ligament following the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament in rabbits. J Clin Rehabil Tissue Eng Res 12(36):7061–7066Google Scholar
- 33.Janssen RPA, Scheffler SU (2013) Intra-articular remodelling of hamstring tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 1–7Google Scholar