Hamstring autograft maturation is superior to tibialis allograft following anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Using second-look arthroscopy, graft maturation was investigated and compared between hamstring (HA) autografts and tibialis anterior (TA) allografts after anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).
Fifty-six patients who underwent second-look arthroscopy after anatomic single-bundle ACLR with either HA autografts (26, HA group) or TA allografts (30, TA group) from 2007 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Graft maturation on second-look arthroscopy was evaluated in terms of four parameters: graft integrity (tear), synovial coverage, graft tension, and graft vascularization. Each parameter received a maximum of two points, depending on the status of the reconstructed graft. The total graft maturation score was calculated as the sum of the parameter scores. The total graft maturation and individual parameter scores were compared between the two groups.
The mean time from ACLR to second-look arthroscopy was 22.5 ± 7.8 months. The maturation scores in the HA group were significantly better in terms of graft integrity (p = 0.041), graft tension (p = 0.010), and graft vascularization (p = 0.024), whereas the graft synovial coverage score was not significantly different. The total graft maturation score of the HA group was significantly higher than that of the TA group (6.3 ± 0.4 vs. 4.9 ± 0.3, p = 0.013).
This study shows the superior graft maturation of HA autografts compared with that of TA allografts at a mean follow-up of 22.5 ± 7.8 months after anatomic single-bundle ACLR. When anatomic ACLR using soft tissue graft is planned, HA autograft is recommended rather than soft tissue allograft, especially in young and active patients.
Level of evidence
Retrospective cohort review, Level III.
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Hamstring Tibialis anterior Second-look surgery Arthroscopy
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to this study.
This study was supported by a grant from Korea University.
This study was approved by the institutional review board of our institution (ID: KUGH16107-003, Korea University Guro Hospital).
- 2.Ageberg E, Roos HP, Silbernagel KG, Thomee R, Roos EM (2009) Knee extension and flexion muscle power after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon graft or hamstring tendons graft: a cross-sectional comparison 3 years post surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:162–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Cvetanovich GL, Mascarenhas R, Saccomanno MF, Verma NN, Cole BJ, Bush-Joseph CA, Bach BR (2014) Hamstring autograft versus soft-tissue allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 30:1616–1624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.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 16:360–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Fleiss JL (1986) Reliability of measurement. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New York, pp 1–32Google Scholar
- 18.Kim MH, Yoo MJ, Park HG, Yoo HY, Lee DH (2010) Comparison of the outcomes on second-look arthroscopy after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a hamstring autograft or a tibialis anterior allograft. Knee Surg Relat Res 22(1):25–31Google Scholar
- 20.Lawhorn KW, Howell SM, Traina SM, Gottlieb JE, Meade TD, Freedberg HI (2012) The effect of graft tissue on anterior cruciate ligament outcomes: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing autograft hamstrings with fresh-frozen anterior tibialis allograft. Arthroscopy 28:1079–1086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Lynch TS, Parker RD, Patel RM, Andrish JT, Group M, Spindler KP, Amendola A, Brophy RH, Dunn WR, Flanigan DC, Huston LJ, Jones MH, Kaeding CC, Marx RG, Matava MJ, McCarty EC, Pedroza AD, Reinke EK, Wolf BR, Wright RW (2015) The Impact of the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) research on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and orthopaedic practice. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 23:154–163CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Mardani-Kivi M, Karimi-Mobarakeh M, Keyhani S, Saheb-Ekhtiari K, Hashemi-Motlagh K, Sarvi A (2016) Hamstring tendon autograft versus fresh-frozen tibialis posterior allograft in primary arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study with three to six years follow-up. Int Orthop 40:1905–1911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.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 24:448–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar