Hamstring Autograft Versus Hybrid Graft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 1014-1022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-De Wang ◽  
Shi-Jun Gao ◽  
Ying-Ze Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
International Knee Documentation Committee ◽  
Knee Stability ◽  
Hamstring Autograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Kt 1000 ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Hamstring tendon autografts are commonly used for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Some patients have small hamstring tendons however, which may compromise the clinical outcome of the autograft. To solve this problem, many surgeons use hybrid grafting that involves augmentation of small hamstring autografts with allograft tissue. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare the clinical outcomes between primary ACL reconstructions performed with hamstring autografts and those performed with hybrid grafts in terms of patient-reported evaluation, failure rate, and knee stability. The hypothesis was that primary ACL reconstruction performed with hamstring autograft alone will not differ significantly from that performed with a hybrid graft in terms of patient-reported evaluation, failure rate, or knee stability. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify prospective and retrospective comparative studies and cohort studies (evidence levels 1-3) comparing outcomes of primary ACL reconstructions performed with hamstring autografting alone and hybrid grafting. Outcomes included patient-reported evaluation, failure rate, and knee stability. Results: Ten studies were included: 1 of level 2 and 9 of level 3. Collectively, they included 398 autografts and 341 hybrid grafts. Mean respective follow-up durations ranged from 24.0 to 69.6 months and from 24.0 to 70.8 months. Patient-reported evaluations, including Lysholm, Tegner, and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores, were reported in 8 of 10 studies. Failure rates were reported in all 10 studies. Results of knee stability examinations—including KT-1000 arthrometer measurements, the pivot-shift test, Lachman test, and overall International Knee Documentation Committee results—were reported in 4 of 10 studies. In this review, there were no statistically significant differences between autografts and hybrid grafts in terms of patient-reported evaluations, failure rates, or KT-1000 measurements. Conclusion: In this systematic review, there was no significant difference in patient-reported evaluation or failure rate between primary ACL reconstructions performed with autografts alone and those performed with hybrid grafts. Whether there is a substantial difference in knee stability examination results between autografts and hybrid grafts remains unknown, given a relative lack of reports on knee stability.

Efficacy of Nonaugmented, Static Augmented, and Dynamic Augmented Suture Repair of the Ruptured Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (14) ◽  
pp. 3626-3637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy A.G. Hoogeslag ◽  
Reinoud W. Brouwer ◽  
Astrid J. de Vries ◽  
Barbara C. Boer ◽  
Rianne Huis in ‘t Veld
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Rupture ◽  
Suture Repair ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament suture repair (ACLSR) was abandoned late last century in favor of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) because of overall disappointing results. However, in recent years there has been renewed and increasing interest in ACLSR for treatment of ACL ruptures. Several contemporary ACLSR techniques are being used, but any difference in effectiveness is unclear. Hypothesis: Contemporary nonaugmented (NA), static augmented (SA), and dynamic augmented (DA) ACLSR leads to (1) comparable outcomes overall and (2) comparable outcomes between proximal third, middle third, and combined ACL rupture locations (a) within and (b) between ACLSR technique categories. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE and Embase databases for the period between January 1, 2010, and August 7, 2019. All articles describing clinical and patient-reported outcomes for ACLSR were identified and included, and outcomes for NA, SA, and DA ACLSR categories were compared. Results: A total of 31 articles and 2422 patients were included. The majority of articles (65%) and patients (89%) reported outcomes of DA ACLSR. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in study characteristics and level as well as quality of evidence (19 level 4; 7 level 3; 3 level 2; and 2 level 1). Most studies indicated excellent patient-reported outcomes. Overall, the variability in (and the maximum of) the reported failure rate was high within all ACLSR categories. The variability in (and the maximum of) the reported rate of all other complications was highest for DA ACLSR. Regarding ACL rupture location, the failure rate was highest in proximal ACL ruptures within the SA and DA ACLSR categories; rates of all other reported complications were highest in combined ACL ruptures within the DA ACLSR category. However, no studies in the NA category and only 1 study in the SA ACLSR category evaluated combined ACL ruptures. The majority of studies comparing ACLSR and ACLR found no differences in outcomes. Conclusion: The amount of high-quality evidence for contemporary ACLSR is poor. This makes it difficult to interpret differences among ACLSR categories and among ACL rupture locations and, though promising, to establish the role of ACLSR in the treatment of ACL ruptures. More high-quality large randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up comparing ACLSR and ACLR are needed.

Twenty-Year Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Prospectively Collected Data

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110273
Author(s):  
Joshua S. Everhart ◽  
Sercan Yalcin ◽  
Kurt P. Spindler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Function ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Several long-term (≥20 years) follow-up studies after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have been published in recent years, allowing for a systematic evaluation of outcomes. Purpose: To summarize outcomes at ≥20 years after ACL reconstruction and identify patient and surgical factors that affect these results. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Prospective studies of primary ACL reconstructions with hamstring or bone–patellar tendon—bone (BTB) autograft via an arthroscopic or a mini-open technique and with a mean follow-up of ≥20 years were identified. When possible, the mean scores for each outcome measure were calculated. Factors identified in individual studies as predictive of outcomes were described. Results: Five studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 2012 patients. The pooled mean follow-up for patient-reported outcome measures was 44.2% (range, 29.6%-92.7%) and in-person evaluation was 33.2% (range, 29.6%-48.9%). Four studies (n = 584) reported graft tears at a mean rate of 11.8% (range, 2%-18.5%) and 4 studies (n = 773) reported a contralateral ACL injury rate of 12.2% (range, 5.8%-30%). Repeat non-ACL arthroscopic surgery (4 studies; n = 177) to the ipsilateral knee occurred in 10.4% (range, 9.5%-18.3%) and knee arthroplasty (1 study; n = 217) in 5%. The pooled mean of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee function (IKDC) score was 79.1 (SD, 21.8 [3 studies; n = 644]). In 2 studies (n?= 221), 57.5% of patients continued to participate in strenuous activities. The IKDC-objective score was normal or nearly normal in 82.3% (n = 496; 3 studies), with low rates of clinically significant residual laxity. Moderate-severe radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) (IKDC grade C or D) was present in 25.9% of patients (n = 605; 3 studies). Medial meniscectomy is associated with increased risk of radiographic OA. Radiographic OA severity is associated with worse patient-reported knee function, but the association with knee pain is unclear. Conclusion: Currently available prospective evidence for ACL reconstruction with hamstring or BTB autograft provides several insights into outcomes at 20 years. The rates of follow-up at 20 years range from 30% to 93%. IKDC-objective scores were normal or nearly normal in 82% and the mean IKDC-subjective score was 79 points.

Timeline for Maximal Subjective Outcome Improvement After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 2501-2509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avinesh Agarwalla ◽  
Richard N. Puzzitiello ◽  
Joseph N. Liu ◽  
Gregory L. Cvetanovich ◽  
Anirudh K. Gowd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Clinical Significance ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are one of the most common traumatic knee injuries experienced by athletes. Return to sport is considered the pinnacle endpoint among patients receiving ACL reconstruction. However, at the time of return to sport, patients may not be participating at their previous levels of function, as defined by clinical metrics. Purpose: To establish when patients perceive maximal subjective medical improvement according to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review of the PubMed database was conducted to identify studies that reported sequential PROMs up to a minimum of 2 years after ACL reconstruction. Pooled analysis was conducted for PROMs at follow-up points of 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Clinically significant improvement was determined between pairs of intervals with the minimal clinically important difference. Results: This review contains 30 studies including 2253 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Clinically significant improvement in the KOOS (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) was seen up to 1 year after ACL reconstruction, but no clinical significance was noted from 1 to 2 years. Clinically significant improvement in the IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) and Lysholm questionnaires was seen up to 6 months postoperatively, but no clinical significance was noted beyond that. Conclusion: After ACL reconstruction, maximal subjective medical improvement is established 1 year postoperatively, with no further perceived clinical improvement beyond this time point according to current PROMs. The KOOS may be a more responsive metric to subjective improvements in this patient cohort than other patient-reported outcomes, such as the IKDC and Lysholm. Clinical Relevance: After ACL reconstruction, patients perceive interval subjective improvements until 1 year postoperatively.

Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) results in fewer rates of atraumatic graft rupture, and higher rates of rotatory knee stability: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 359-370
Author(s):  
Yousif Eliya ◽  
Khaled Nawar ◽  
Benjamin B Rothrauff ◽  
Bryson P Lesniak ◽  
Volker Musahl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Knee Stability ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

ImportanceThis review highlights the differences in outcomes between anatomical and non-anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques.ObjectiveTo compare clinical and functional outcomes between anatomical and non-anatomical ACLR techniques.Evidence reviewA search of MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed from 1 January 2000 to 24 October 2019 was conducted. Randomised and prospective primary ACLR studies using autograft and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included. The Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Checklist (AARSC) was used to categorise studies as anatomical. Outcomes analysed included failure rate, knee stability and functional outcomes. A meta-analysis using risk ratio and mean differences was conducted using a random effects model.FindingsThirty-six studies were included, representing 3710 patients with a follow-up range of 24–300 months. The overall failure rate was 96/1470 (6.5%) and 131/1952 (6.7%) in the anatomical group and non-anatomical group, respectively. The pooled results of the overall failure rate showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the anatomical and the non-anatomical groups (p=0.96). There were 37/60 (61.7%) and 29/67 (43.3%) traumatic failures in the anatomical and non-anatomical groups, respectively. The number of patients with the negative postoperative pivot-shift test was 995/1252 (79.5%) and 1140/1589 (71.1%) in the anatomical and non-anatomical groups, respectively. The pooled results indicated a statistically significant higher number of patients with a positive pivot shift in the non-anatomical group compared with the anatomical group (p=0.03).Conclusions and relevanceThis study demonstrated that the overall failure rate was similar between the anatomical and non-anatomical approaches. However, the anatomical ACLR demonstrated a significantly superior restoration of rotatory stability, as evidenced by a higher percentage with a negative postoperative pivot-shift test. Non-anatomical ACLR resulted in higher rates of atraumatic graft ruptures and persistent rotatory knee instability. Surgeons should consider anatomical ACLR when treating rotatory knee stability in patients.Level of evidenceII, systematic review and meta-analysis of level I and II studies.

scholarly journals Influence of graft diameter on patient reported outcomes after hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Duerr ◽  
Kirsten D. Garvey ◽  
Jakob Ackermann ◽  
Elizabeth G. Matzkin
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Hamstring Autograft ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Point Increase ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Graft Diameter

Several studies have identified graft diameter as a risk factor for failure following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of graft diameter on patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) following ACLR. We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data using a global surgical registry. 153 of 287 patients (53.3%) had complete data for each timepoint. Effect of graft diameter, graft type, femoral tunnel drilling technique, patient age, sex, and body mass index were evaluated. At 1-year post-operatively, a 1-mm increase in graft diameter was found to correlate with a 5.7-point increase in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) activity of daily living score (p = 0.01), a 10.3-point increase in the sport score (p=0.003), and a 9.8-point increase in the quality of life score (p=0.013). At 2-years post-operatively, a 1-mm increase in graft size was found to be marginally correlated with KOOS symptoms and sport scores. Patients undergoing hamstring autograft ACLR, increasing graft diameter can result in improved PROMS, specifically improved KOOS subscale scores at 1 and 2-years post-operative.

Outcomes of 1- Versus 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 036354652092309
Author(s):  
Matthew Colatruglio ◽  
David C. Flanigan ◽  
Joseph Long ◽  
Alex C. DiBartola ◽  
Robert A. Magnussen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common orthopaedic sports medicine procedure, but graft failure is not uncommon and often leads to revision ACLR. Revision surgery can be performed in a 1- or 2-stage fashion. Hypothesis: Graft failure risk, patient-reported outcomes, and anterior knee laxity are similar after 1- and 2-stage revision ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to evaluate patient outcomes after 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR. A search was performed with the phrase “revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction” across Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus from the beginning of their archives through July 12, 2019. Results: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria and included 524 patients: 319 patients who underwent 1-stage revision ACLR and 205 patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR. Two studies compared outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR; 4 studies reported outcomes after 2-stage revision ACLR; and the remaining 7 studies documented outcomes after 1-stage ACLR. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years. The 2 studies that compared 1- versus 2-stage ACLR reported no differences in functional, radiologic, or patient-reported outcomes or failure risk. Overall, 9 studies reported subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores; 4 studies, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score values; 8 studies, Lysholm scores; and 7 studies, Tegner scores; 8 studies measured anterior laxity with a KT-1000 arthrometer. The mean weighted subjective IKDC score for all studies including this outcome at final follow-up was 66.6 for 1-stage revisions and 65.9 for 2-stage revisions. Conclusion: The available evidence comparing 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR is retrospective and limited. The results of each approach are similar in appropriately selected patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document