Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

No significant difference in clinical outcome and knee stability between patellar tendon and semitendinosus tendon in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery volume 136, pages 521–525 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

ACL reconstruction with either patellar tendon or semitendinosus tendon autografts are standard procedures. Between these two grafts might be differences in stability, morbidity, or long-term changes. This study investigates outcomes of ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon versus semitendinosus tendon autografts. We hypothesize no significant differences in clinical outcome and knee stability between both groups.

Methods

In a randomized prospective trial, we operated 62 ACL-deficient patients, 45 males and 17 females with a mean age of 29.8 years (min. 18, max. 44). We reconstructed the ligament using either autologous patellar tendon (n = 31) or semitendinosus tendon (n = 31). After 10 years of follow-up, we investigated 47 patients of the study. For evaluation we used a standard clinical examination including one-leg jump test and KT-1000 instrumental translation measure, visual analog pain scale, IKDC subjective knee form, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and standard X-rays of the knee.

Results

The data did not show any significant differences between the two groups. Between 5 and 10 years after ACL reconstruction both groups started to develop degenerative arthritic changes, which were detectable in standard radiographs of the knee. At 10-year follow-up mean IKDC for the BPTB group was 1.8 (min. 1, max. 3) and for the ST group it was 2.2 (min 1, max. 4), p = 0.35. Regarding Tegner activity scale after 10 years, the BPTB group showed a mean score of 5.9 (min. 4, max. 9) versus 5.1 (min. 3, max. 7) in the ST group, p = 0.53. For the Lysholm score the BPTB group reached a mean of 92.0 (min. 63, max. 98) and the ST group 91.8 (min. 62, max. 98) points, p = 0.66. There is a tendency for higher donor site morbidity in the BPTB group than in the ST group, p = 0.07.

Conclusions

Both, patellar tendon and semitendinosus tendon are safe autografts for ACL reconstruction. Regarding graft selection, individual patient-dependent factors should be considered. ACL reconstruction cannot fully restore pre-injury status of knee joint function in the majority of cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Filbay SR, Culvenor AG, Ackerman IN, Russell TG, Crossley KM (2015) Quality of life in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 49:1033–1041

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pinczewski LA, Lyman J, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Roe J, Linklater J (2007) A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft. Am J Sports Med 35:564–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lidén M, Ejerhed L, Sernert N, Laxdal G, Kartus J (2007) Patellar tendon or semitendinosus tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 35:740–748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barenius B, Nordlander M, Ponzer S, Tidermark J, Eriksson K (2010) Quality of life and clinical outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon graft or quadrupled semitendinosus graft. Am J Sports Med 38:1533–1541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Daniel DM, Malcolm LL, Stone ML, Perth H, Morgan J, Riehl B (1982) Quantification of knee stability and function. Contemp Orthop 5:83–91

    Google Scholar 

  6. Daniel DM, Malcom LL, Losse G, Stone ML, Sachs R, Burks R (1985) Instrumental measurement of anterior laxity of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:720–726

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Price D, Bush F, Long S, Harkins S (1994) A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales. Pain 56:217–226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hefti F, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hefti F, Müller W (1993) Current state of knee ligament lexions. The new IKDC knee evaluation form. Orthopade 22:351–362

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Irrgang JJ, Ho H, Harner CD, Fu FH (1998) Use of the International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6:107–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelborne KD (2001) Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 29:600–613

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Higgins LD, Taylor MK, Park D, Ghodadra N, Marchant M, Pietrobon R, Cook C (2007) Reliability and validity of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form. Joint Bone Spine 74:594–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sherman MF, Warren RF, Marshall JL, Savatsky GJ (1988) A clinical and radiographical analysis of 127 anterior cruciate insufficient knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227:22–237

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sherman MF, Lieber L, Bonamo JR, Podesta L, Reiter I (1991) The long-term followup of primary anterior cruciate ligament repair. Defining a rationale for augmentation. Am J Sports Med 19:243–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wipfler B, Donner S, Zechmann CM, Springer J, Siebold R, Paessler HH (2011) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon: a prospective comparative study with 9-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 27:653–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Barenius B, Ponzer S, Shalabi A, Bujak R, Norlén L, Eriksson K (2014) Increased risk of osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 42:1049–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Spahn G, Schiltenwolf M, Hartmann B, Grifka J, Hofmann GO, Klemm HT (2015) The time-related risk for knee osteoarthritis after ACL injury: results from a systematic review. Orthopade [Epub ahead of print]

  20. Struewer J, Ziring E, Frangen TM, Efe T, Meißner S, Buecking B, Bliemel C, Ishaque B (2013) Clinical outcome and prevalence of osteoarthritis after isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring graft: follow-up after 2 and 10 years. Int Orthop 37:271–277

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, König-Ludwig-Haus, Julius-Maximilians-University Wuerzburg, Brettreichstr. 11, 97074, Würzburg, Germany

    Christian Konrads, Stephan Reppenhagen, Piet Plumhoff, Maik Hoberg, Maximilian Rudert & Thomas Barthel

Authors
  1. Christian Konrads
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephan Reppenhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Piet Plumhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maik Hoberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maximilian Rudert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Barthel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Konrads.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Konrads, C., Reppenhagen, S., Plumhoff, P. et al. No significant difference in clinical outcome and knee stability between patellar tendon and semitendinosus tendon in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136, 521–525 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2386-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2386-4

Keywords

search

Navigation