Mid-Term Outcomes of the All-Soft Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Are Noninferior to Hamstring Autograft in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Comparison With Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

Risk factors for anteroposterior laxity increase over time in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autografts

PURPOSE

An anteroposterior (AP) laxity can increase over time after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using hamstring tendons; however, the associated risk factors remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors of this phenomenon.

METHODS

Overall, 151 patients who underwent ACLR using hamstring autografts were recruited. AP laxity was evaluated using Knee Lax 3 arthrometer at 5 months, 1 and 2 years postsurgery. Patients were categorised into groups I (>1 mm increase) and C (<1 mm increase) based on whether they experienced an irreversible increase in AP laxity after 1 or 2 years compared with 5 months. Patient demographics and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2 years postsurgery were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Group I (n = 33, 21%) showed a side-to-side difference of 4.6 (3.0-7.2) mm in AP laxity preoperatively and 0.3 (-0.7 to 1.3), 1.1 (0.2-1.9) and 2.4 (1.7-3.2) mm at 5 months, 1 and 2 years postoperatively, while group C (n = 119, 79%) showed 4.3 (2.8-5.7) mm preoperatively and 1.3 (0-1.9), 0.9 (0.1-1.8) and 0.6 (-0.3 to 1.5) mm, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the overall KOOS at 2 years (n.s.). However, group I was older (36 [22-46] vs. 28 [19-39] years; p = 0.044), had longer surgical waiting periods (122 [69-341] vs. 81 [52-136] days; p = 0.041) and lower preoperative Tegner activity scale scores (6 [5-7] vs. 7 [6,7]; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

While 33 patients (21%) experienced AP laxity increase over time, they had comparable clinical outcomes with group C.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Labral repair, reconstruction, and augmentation improve postoperative outcomes in patients with irreparable or hypoplastic labra: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To review the postoperative outcomes of arthroscopic surgical options in treating irreparable and hypoplastic labrum of the hip.

METHODS

Three online databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) were searched from database inception to June 27, 2023 to identify literature on treatment strategies for hypoplastic/irreparable acetabular labrum. Data pertaining to classification of irreparable tears or labral hypoplasia, indication for surgery, description of treatment, radiographic findings, and clinical outcomes were recorded and described. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria.

RESULTS

Seven level IV case series, eleven level III retrospective cohort studies, and two level II prospective cohort studies comprising 1937 patients were included for analysis. Studies were divided into an irreparable labral group comprising 1002 patients and a hypoplastic labral group comprising 935 patients. Treatments included repair, augmentation, or reconstruction. In the irreparable group, 12 studies recorded improvement of modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) with preoperative scores ranging from 50.3 to 67.3 and postoperative scores ranging from 76.2 to 95.0. The rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and rate of revision arthroscopy were 6.6% and 5.9%, respectively across all studies. In the hypoplastic group, two studies that focused on repair noted no statistical difference in mHHS for repair in hypoplastic labrum vs repair in non-hypoplastic labrum. One study showed that there was a difference in post-operative mHHS for labral repair for hypoplastic vs non-hypoplastic labrum, with repair in non-hypoplastic labrum showing superior mHHS (p ​< ​0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review suggest that treatment of irreparable labra with reconstruction or augmentation results in improved patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). For the hypoplastic labrum, primary repair also results in improvement in PROMs. Future studies focusing on the hypoplastic labra alone with an appropriate control group, rather than irreparable labral tears, are needed to properly assess patient outcomes and guide surgical indications.

Minimally Invasive Quadriceps Tendon Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the Quadriceps Tendon Harvest Guide System

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft is an increasingly utilized technique that confers less donor site morbidity and comparable outcomes to other historically used graft options. The graft harvest and implantation process present vast variability-particularly regarding the achievement of adequate graft site visualization, consistently attaining a uniform and appropriately sized graft, and subsequent reconstruction of the ACL with the all-soft tissue graft. The purpose of this Technical Note and video is to describe and demonstrate minimally invasive quadriceps tendon autograft harvesting using the Quadriceps Tendon Harvest Guide System (QUADTRAC), and its subsequent implantation within a single-bundle ACL reconstruction with suspensory fixation.

Minimally Invasive Quadriceps Tendon Harvest for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the Quadriceps Tendon Harvest Guide (QUADTRAC) System and Repair Augmentation With a Bioinductive Implant

Quadriceps tendon autografts are an increasingly popular choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, with decreased donor-site morbidity alongside good patient outcomes. Although harvesting of the tendon can be done in a minimally invasive fashion, this introduces some difficulty with visualization and consistency of graft sizing. The purpose of this Technical Note and video is to provide a method of quadriceps tendon autograft harvesting using the Quadriceps Tendon Harvest Guide System (QUADTRAC) in a single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament With Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Yields Similar Clinical and Radiographic Results at Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Versus Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical, radiographic, and second-look arthroscopic outcomes between double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (DB group) and combined single-bundle (SB) ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction (SB + ALL group) by a prospective randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

From May 2019 to June 2020, 84 patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 10 were lost to follow-up. Thirty-six and 38 patients were successfully allocated to the DB (mean follow up 27.3 ± 4.2 months) and SB + ALL groups (27.2 ± 4.5 months), respectively. The preoperative and postoperative Lachman test, pivot shift test, anterior translation on stress radiographs, KT-2000 arthrometer, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, and Tegner activity score were evaluated and compared. Graft continuity was evaluated using postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (32 and 36 patients underwent MRI in the DB and SB + ALL groups at 7.4 ± 3.2 and 7.5 ± 2.9 months after surgery, respectively), and second-look examinations (second-look examination and tibial screw removal were performed concomitantly when patients (1) had tibial screw-related irritation or (2) needed the screws removed, 28 and 23 patients underwent examinations in the DB and SB + ALL groups at 24.0 ± 6.8 and 24.9 ± 8.1 months after surgery, respectively). All measurements were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Postoperative clinical outcomes significantly improved in both groups. (All variables showed P < .001) No statistically different outcomes were found between the 2 groups. Additionally, postoperative graft continuity on MRI and second-look examinations were not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The DB and SB + ALL groups showed similar postoperative clinical, radiographic, and second-look arthroscopic outcomes. Both groups showed excellent postoperative stability and clinical outcomes compared with the preoperative measurements.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, randomized controlled trial.

Contralateral hamstring autografts do not provide benefit compared to ipsilateral hamstring autografts in primary or revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of primary or revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) after contralateral hamstring autografts versus ipsilateral hamstring autograft harvest.

METHODS

Three databases (MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE) were searched from inception to April 27th, 2023 for studies investigating contralateral hamstring autografts in primary or revision ACLR. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, strength measures, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and rates of positive Lachman test, positive pivot-shift test and graft rupture were extracted. PROMs included Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores.

RESULTS

Nine studies comprising 371 patients were included in this review. In primary ACLR, there were no significant differences between contralateral and ipsilateral groups in isokinetic hamstring torque in the non-ACLR limb or isokinetic quadriceps torque in both limbs when tested at 60, 90, 120 or 180 degrees/second. Isokinetic hamstring torque in the non-ACLR limb was significantly weaker in the contralateral group at six months for primary ACLR; however, these deficits did not persist. There were no significant differences in postoperative median Tegner scores and Lysholm scores between contralateral and ipsilateral groups in primary ACLR. There were no significant differences in postoperative median Tegner, mean Lysholm and IKDC scores between groups in revision ACLR. There were no significant differences in positive Lachman, positive pivot-shift and rupture rates in primary ACLR between groups. Rates of positive Lachman and pivot-shift were slightly higher in the contralateral than ipsilateral group for revision ACLR.

CONCLUSION

Contralateral hamstring autografts results in comparable muscle strength to ipsilateral hamstring autografts, with the exception of weaker hamstring strengths in the early postoperative period. Patient-reported outcome measures were similar between the two groups across both primary and revision ACLR, with rates of instability and failure being similar between groups for primary ACLR. Contralateral hamstring grafts do not provide additional benefit when compared to ipsilateral options for either primary or revision ACLR, and should be used only in select circumstances including insufficient ipsilateral hamstring grafts or situations where quadriceps or patella autografts are not optimal.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Though five-strand hamstring autografts demonstrate greater graft diameter, postoperative outcomes are equivocal to four-strand hamstring autograft preparations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I and II studies

PURPOSE

To compare graft dimensions, functional outcomes, and failure rates following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with either five-strand or four-strand hamstring autograft options.

METHODS

Three databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE) were searched from inception to 22 April 2023 for level I and II studies comparing five- and four-strand hamstring autografts in ACLR. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, surgical details and rehabilitation, graft diameter, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and rates of positive Lachman test, positive pivot shift test, and graft rupture were extracted. PROMs included Knee Osteoarthritis and Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, Lysholm, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC).

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and four prospective cohort studies with 572 patients were included. Graft diameters were larger in the five-strand group with a mean difference of 0.93 mm (95% CI 0.61 to 1.25, p < 0.001, I2 = 66%). The five-strand group reported statistically higher KOOS ADL subscale and Lysholm scores with a mean difference of 4.85 (95% CI 0.14 to 9.56, p = 0.04, I2 = 19%) and 3.01 (95% CI 0.48 to 5.53, p = 0.02, I2 = 0%), respectively. There were no differences in KOOS symptoms, pain, quality of life, or sports subscales, or IKDC scores. There were no differences in rates of positive Lachman test, positive pivot shift test, or graft rupture with pooled odds ratios of 0.62 (95% CI 0.13 to 2.91, n.s., I2 = 80%), 0.94 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.75, n.s., I2 = 31%), and 2.13 (95% CI 0.38 to 12.06, n.s., I2 = 0%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although five-stranded hamstring autografts had significantly larger graft diameters compared to four-stranded grafts with a mean difference of 0.93 mm, similar graft rupture rates and clinical laxity assessments were identified following ACLR. While some PROMs were statistically superior in the five-stranded hamstring groups, the threshold for the minimal clinical important difference was not reached indicating similar clinical outcomes overall.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.