Advertisement

Small hamstring autograft is defined by a cut-off diameter of 7 mm and not recommended with allograft augmentation in single-bundle ACL reconstruction

  • Huijun Kang
  • Conglei Dong
  • Fei WangEmail author
KNEE
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The present study was to analyze graft failure rates of hamstring tendon (HT) autografts with a cut-off graft diameter of 8 mm or 7 mm, and compare clinical outcomes between augmented small HT with an allograft and non-augmented relatively large HT in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Methods

A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. Studies to assess graft failure of autologous HT ACLR were reviewed, and graft failure rates with a cut-off graft diameter of 8 mm or 7 mm were further extracted. Clinical comparative studies of ACLR between augmented small HT with an allograft and non-augmented relatively large HT autografts were also included. Results are presented as risk ratio (RR) for binary data and weighted mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Nine studies with 2243 knees were included. Four studies examined the effect of HT autograft diameter on graft failure and five studies assessed clinical outcomes of allograft augmentation to small HT autografts. No significant difference was noted in graft failure with a cut-off diameter of 8 mm. No significant difference was found between diameters > 7 and ≤ 7 mm, but a significant difference was observed between diameters ≥ 7 and < 7 mm (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.26–0.92, I2 = 0%, P = 0.03). A trend towards increased risk of graft failure was noted for allograft-augmented HT compared with non-augmented HT autografts (RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.18–1.02, I2 = 0%), but no significant differences were noted in IKDC, Lysholm, and Tegner scores between these groups.

Conclusion

The present study did support the use of 7 mm as a reference for cut-off diameter for small HT autografts, but not allograft augmentation to small HT autografts. These findings would guide clinical application of small HT autografts in single-bundle ACLR.

Level of evidence

IV.

Keywords

ACL reconstruction Small hamstring Graft diameter Hybrid graft Augmentation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Peter Mittwede, MD, PhD, from Liwen Bianji, Edanz Editing China (http://www.liwenbianji.cn/ac), for editing the English text of a draft of this manuscript.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

167_2019_5475_MOESM1_ESM.doc (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 29 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Andernord D, Bjornsson H, Petzold M, Eriksson BI, Forssblad M, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K (2014) Surgical predictors of early revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the swedish national knee ligament register on 13,102 patients. Am J Sports Med 42(7):1574–1582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boniello MR, Schwingler PM, Bonner JM, Robinson SP, Cotter A, Bonner KF (2015) Impact of hamstring graft diameter on tendon strength: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 31(6):1084–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burrus MT, Werner BC, Crow AJ et al. (2015) Increased failure rates after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with soft-tissue autograft-allograft hybrid grafts. Arthroscopy 31:2342–2351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conte EJ, Hyatt AE, Gatt CJ Jr, Dhawan A (2014) Hamstring autograft size can be predicted and is a potential risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure. Arthroscopy 30(7):882–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darnley JE, Leger-St-Jean B, Pedroza AD, Flanigan DC, Kaeding CC, Magnussen RA (2016) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a combination of autograft and allograft tendon: a MOON cohort study. Orthop J Sports Med 4:2325967116662249PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DiBartola AC, Everhart JS, Kaeding CC, Magnussen RA, Flanigan DC (2016) Maximum load to failure of high dose versus low dose gamma irradiation of anterior cruciate ligament allografts: a meta-analysis. Knee 23:755–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farmer K, Kenney N, Moser M, Conrad B (2013) Biomechanical qualities of small size hamstring grafts: how small is too small? Arthroscopy 29(10):e145–e146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Figueroa F, Figueroa D, Espregueira-Mendes J (2018) Hamstring autograft size importance in anterior cruciate ligament repair surgery. EFORT Open Rev 3(3):93–97CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kopf S, Pombo MW, Szczodry M, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH (2011) Size variability of the human anterior cruciate ligament insertion sites. Am J Sports Med 39(1):108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leo BM, Krill M, Barksdale L, Alvarez-Pinzon AM (2016) Failure rate and clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autograft hamstring versus a hybrid graft. Arthroscopy 32:2357–2363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li J, Wang J, Li Y, Shao D, You X, Shen Y (2015) A prospective randomized study of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft, gamma-irradiated allograft, and hybrid graft. Arthroscopy 31:1296–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Magnussen RA, Kaeding CC, Taylor DC (2015) Solutions to small hamstring autograft harvest: a survey of the ACL study group. Curr Orthop Pract 26(1):43–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mariscalco MW, Flanigan DC, Mitchell J et al. (2013) The influence of hamstring autograft size on patient-reported outcomes and risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a multicenter orthopaedic outcomes network (MOON) cohort study. Arthroscopy 29(12):1948–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noyes FR, Butler DL, Grood ES, Zernicke RF, Hefzy MS (1984) Biomechanical analysis of human ligament grafts used in knee-ligament repairs and reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park SY, Oh H, Park S, Lee JH, Lee SH, Yoon KH (2013) Factors predicting hamstring tendon autograft diameters and resulting failure rates after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(5):1111–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pennock AT, Ho B, Parvanta K, Edmonds EW, Chambers HG, Roocroft JH, Bastrom TP (2017) Does allograft augmentation of small-diameter hamstring autograft ACL grafts reduce the incidence of graft retear? Am J Sports Med 45(2):334–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schimoler PJ, Braun DT, Miller MC, Akhavan S (2015) Quadrupled hamstring graft strength as a function of clinical sizing. Arthroscopy 31(6):1091–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Snaebjörnsson T, Hamrin Senorski E, Ayeni OR et al. (2017) Graft diameter as a predictor for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and KOOS and EQ-5D values: a cohort study from the Swedish national knee ligament register based on 2240 patients. Am J Sports Med 45(9):2092–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spragg L, Chen J, Mirzayan R, Love R, Maletis G (2016) The effect of autologous hamstring graft diameter on the likelihood for revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 44(6):1475–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang HD, Gao SJ, Zhang YZ (2018) Comparison of clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a hybrid graft versus a hamstring autograft. Arthroscopy 34(5):1508–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Webster KE, Feller JA, Leigh WB, Richmond AK (2014) Younger patients are at increased risk of graft rupture and contralateral injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 42(3):641–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D et al (2011) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in metaanalyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wernecke GC, Constantinidis A, Harris IA, Seeto BG, Chen DB, MacDessi SJ (2017) The diameter of single bundle, hamstring autograft does not significantly influence revision rate or clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 24(5):1033–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wydra FB, York PJ, Johnson CR, Silvestri L (2016) Allografts for ligament reconstruction: where are we now? Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 45(7):446–453Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu H, Dong J, Xin D, Zhang J, Kang K, Gao S (2017) Second-look arthroscopic evaluation and clinical outcomes of anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft and hybrid graft: a retrospective study. Med Sci Monit 23:5564–5573CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Joint SurgeryThird Hospital of Hebei Medical UniversityShijiazhuangChina

Personalised recommendations