Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between hamstring autograft and free tendon Achilles allograft: minimum 2-year follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using EndoButton and Intrafix

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

Abstract

Purpose

This study is to compare the clinical and radiographic results of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with four-stranded autogenous hamstring tendon and two-stranded free tendon Achilles allograft fixed with EndoButton in the femoral tunnel and Intrafix in the tibial tunnel.

Materials and methods

106 patients diagnosed with ACL rupture underwent ACL reconstruction. Autogenous hamstring tendon was used in 33 patients (group I) and free tendon Achilles allografts were used in 32 patients (group II). Median age was 23 years old (20–51) in group I and 22 years old (20–55) in group II. Range of motion, Lachman test, Pivot shift test, IKDC score, Lysholm score and side-to-side difference (SSD) were evaluated preoperatively and at the last follow-up. Tegner activity scale was evaluated before injury and at the last follow-up.

Results

The mean follow-up periods were 28.1 months in group I and 31.6 months in group II. Range of motion of the knee was not different from that of the unaffected side in most cases except one flexion deficit in group I and three in group II (n.s.). One in group I and three in group II showed grade two or three laxity on Lachman test at the last follow-up. One in group I and three in group II showed clear positive results on Pivot shift test at the last follow-up. Thirty in group I and 26 in group II were classified to IKDC A or B at the last follow-up (n.s.). Median Lysholm scores were 98 (85–100) in group I and 99 (85–100) in group II at the last follow-up (n.s.). Median Tegner activity scales were 6 (5–9) in group I and 6 (4–9) in group II at the last follow-up (n.s.). The mean SSD at the last follow-up were 1.4 ± 2.0 mm in group I and 1.9 ± 2.4 mm in group II (n.s.).

Conclusion

Clinical and radiological outcomes of ACL reconstruction with two-stranded free tendon Achilles allograft were comparable to those of four-stranded autogenous hamstring tendon. This technique is reasonable to accomplish good results without some weaknesses when using allograft with bone block.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic randomized controlled prospective study, Level I.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahn JH, Park JS, Lee YS, Cho YJ (2007) Femoral bioabsorbable cross-pin fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 23:1093–1099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Athanasiou VT, Papachristou DJ, Panagopoulos A, Saridis A, Scopa CD, Megas P (2010) Histological comparison of autograft, allograft-DBM, xenograft, and synthetic grafts in a trabecular bone defect: an experimental study in rabbits. Med Sci Monit 16:BR24–BR31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Behfar V, Hurschler C, Albrecht K, Krettek C, Bosch U, Jagodzinski M (2005) The development and biomechanical testing of a femoral press fit fixation for hamstring tendons. Unfallchirurg 108:630–637

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Buelow JU, Siebold R, Ellermann A (2002) A prospective evaluation of tunnel enlargement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings: extracortical versus anatomical fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10:80–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cinar BM, Akpinar S, Hersekli MA, Uysal M, Cesur N, Pourbagher A et al (2009) The effects of two different fixation methods on femoral bone tunnel enlargement and clinical results in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon graft. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 43:515–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dustmann M, Schmidt T, Gangey I, Unterhauser FN, Weiler A, Scheffler SU (2008) The extracellular remodeling of free-soft-tissue autografts and allografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a comparison study in a sheep model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:360–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Edgar CM, Zimmer S, Kakar S, Jones H, Schepsis AA (2008) Prospective comparison of auto and allograft hamstring tendon constructs for ACL reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2238–2246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ekdahl M, Wang JH, Ronga M, Fu FH (2008) Graft healing in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:935–947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fauno P, Kaalund S (2005) Tunnel widening after hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is influenced by the type of graft fixation used: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy 21:1337–1341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Foster TE, Wolfe BL, Ryan S, Silvestri L, Kaye EK (2010) Does the graft source really matter in the outcome of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? An evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction results: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 38:189–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fu F, Christel P, Miller MD, Johnson DL (2009) Graft selection for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 58:337–354

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Iorio R, Vadala A, Argento G, Di Sanzo V, Ferretti A (2007) Bone tunnel enlargement after ACL reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendons: a CT study. Int Orthop 31:49–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Klein SA, Nyland J, Kocabey Y, Wozniak T, Nawab A, Caborn DN (2004) Tendon graft fixation in ACL reconstruction: in vitro evaluation of bioabsorbable tenodesis screw. Acta Orthop Scand 75:84–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kobayashi M, Nakagawa Y, Suzuki T, Okudaira S, Nakamura T (2006) A retrospective review of bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendons fixed with a metal round cannulated interference screw in the femur. Arthroscopy 22:1093–1099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuskucu SM (2008) Comparison of short-term results of bone tunnel enlargement between EndoButton CL and cross-pin fixation systems after chronic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autologous quadrupled hamstring tendons. J Int Med Res 36:23–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. L’Insalata JC, Klatt B, Fu FH, Harner CD (1997) Tunnel expansion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 5:234–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lind M, Feller J, Webster KE (2009) Bone tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using EndoButton or EndoButton continuous loop. Arthroscopy 25:1275–1280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu YJ, Li HF, Wang JL, Wang ZG, Li ZL, Wei M et al (2009) RIGIDfix tibial and femur cross pin system used for hamstring grafted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 89:2034–2037

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Meuffels DE, Niggebrugge MJ, Verhaar JA (2009) Failure load of patellar tendon grafts at the femoral side: 10- versus 20-mm-bone blocks. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:135–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. Monaco E, Labianca L, Speranza A, Agro AM, Camillieri G, D’Arrigo C et al (2010) Biomechanical evaluation of different anterior cruciate ligament fixation techniques for hamstring graft. J Orthop Sci 15:125–131

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Reinhardt KR, Hetsroni I, Marx RG (2010) Graft selection for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a level I systematic review comparing failure rates and functional outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am 41:249–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Scheffler SU, Schmidt T, Gangey I, Dustmann M, Unterhauser F, Weiler A (2008) Fresh-frozen free-tendon allografts versus autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: delayed remodeling and inferior mechanical function during long-term healing in sheep. Arthroscopy 24:448–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Scheffler SU, Unterhauser FN, Weiler A (2008) Graft remodeling and ligamentization after cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:834–842

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Uchio Y, Ochi M, Sumen Y, Adachi N, Kawasaki K, Iwasa J et al (2002) Mechanical properties of newly developed loop ligament for connection between the EndoButton and hamstring tendons: comparison with Ethibond sutures and Endobutton tape. J Biomed Mater Res 63:173–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang JL, Liu YJ, Wang AY, Yang YM, Li HF, Li ZL et al (2009) Biomechanical evaluation of tendon graft fixation at the tibial site in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with Intrafix and bioabsorbable interference screw. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 89:886–889

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu JL, Yeh TT, Shen HC, Cheng CK, Lee CH (2009) Mechanical comparison of biodegradable femoral fixation devices for hamstring tendon graft—a biomechanical study in a porcine model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 24:435–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zantop T, Weimann A, Wolle K, Musahl V, Langer M, Petersen W (2007) Initial and 6 weeks postoperative structural properties of soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with cross-pin or interference screw fixation: an in vivo study in sheep. Arthroscopy 23:14–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang L, Liu JS, Sun J, Li ZY, Ma J (2009) Comparison of the clinical outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using allograft anterior tibialis and autologous hamstring tendon. Zhongguo Gu Shang 22:166–169

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoeki-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-702, Korea

    Jung Ho Noh

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Police Hospital, Seoul, Korea

    Seung Rim Yi, Seong Wan Kim & Woo Kim

  3. Kyunghee Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

    Sang Jun Song

Authors
  1. Jung Ho Noh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seung Rim Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sang Jun Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seong Wan Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Woo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jung Ho Noh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Noh, J.H., Yi, S.R., Song, S.J. et al. Comparison between hamstring autograft and free tendon Achilles allograft: minimum 2-year follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using EndoButton and Intrafix. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19, 816–822 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1388-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1388-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation