Search Filters

  • Presentation Format
  • Media Type
  • Diagnosis / Condition
  • Diagnosis Method
  • Patient Populations
  • Treatment / Technique

Quadriceps Tendon- Vs. Hamstring Tendon Autograft In Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Matched-Pairs Study With A Mean Follow-Up Of 6.5 Years

2021 Congress Paper Abstracts

Quadriceps Tendon- Vs. Hamstring Tendon Autograft In Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Matched-Pairs Study With A Mean Follow-Up Of 6.5 Years

Armin Runer, MD, AUSTRIA Aline Suter, MD, AUSTRIA Tommaso Roberti di Sarsina, MD, ITALY Caroline Hepperger, Mag., AUSTRIA Peter Gföller, MD, AUSTRIA Christian Hoser, MD, AUSTRIA Robert Csapo, PhD, AUSTRIA Christian Fink, MD, Prof., AUSTRIA

Gelenkpunkt - Sports and Joint Surgery, Innsbruck, AUSTRIA


2021 Congress   Abstract Presentation   5 minutes   Not yet rated

 

Anatomic Location

Anatomic Structure

Diagnosis / Condition

Ligaments

ACL

This media is available to ISAKOS 2021: Global Registrants and On Demand purchases only.
Please log in or purchase to access.


Summary: The use of Quadriceps tendon autograft in isolated, primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction leads to equal clinical, functional and patient-reported outcomes but to less donor site morbidity when compared to hamstring tendon autografts.


Objectives: To compare clinical and functional outcomes of patients after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using quadriceps tendon- (QT-A) and hamstring tendon (HT-A) autograft with a minimum follow-up (FU) of 5 years.

Methods

Between 2010 - 2014, all patients undergoing ACLR (QT: 119, HT: 511) were recorded in a prospectively administered database. All patients with primary, isolated QT-A ACLR and without any concomitant injuries or high grade of osteoarthritis were extracted from the database and matched to patients treated with HT-A. Re-rupture rates, anterior-posterior (ap) knee laxity, single-leg-hop test (SLHT) performance, distal thigh circumference (DTC) and patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) were recorded. Between-group comparisons were performed using chi-square-, independent-samples T- or Mann-Whitney-U tests.

Results

45 QT-A patients were matched to 45 HT-A patients (n=90). The mean FU was 78.9±13.6 months. 18 patients (20.0% / QT: N=8, 17.8%; HT: n=10, 22.2%; p=.60) sustained a graft rupture and 17 subjects (18.9% / QT: n=9, 20.0%; HT: n=8, 17.8%; p= .79) suffered a contralateral ACL injury. In high active patients (Tegner-activity-level=7) the rerupture rate increased to 37.5% (HT-A) and 22.2% (QT-A; p=.32). No statistical between-group differences were found in ap knee laxity side-to-side (SSD) measurements (QT-A: 1.9±1.2mm, HT-A: 2.1±1.5mm; p=.60), subjective IKDC- (QT: 93.8±6.8, HT: 91.2±7.8, p=.17), Lysholm- (QT: 91.9±7.2, HT: 91.5±9.7, p=.75) or any of the five subscales of the KOOS score (all p>.05). Furthermore, Tegner-activity-level (QT: 6(1.5), HT: 6(2), p=.62), VAS for pain (QT: 0.5±0.9, HT: 0.6±1.0, p=.64), Shelbourne-Trumper-Score (QT: 96.5±5.6, HT: 95.2±8.2, p=.50), Patient-and-Observer-Scar-Assessment-Scale (POSAS) (QT: 9.4±3.2, HT: 10.7± 4.9, p=.24), SSD-DTC (QT: 0.5±0.5, HT: 0.5±0.6, p=.97), return to sports rates (QT-A: 82.1%, HT-A: 86.7%) and SLHT (QT: 95.9±3.8%, HT-A: 93.7±7.0%) did not differ between groups. Length of skin incision (HT-A: 3.1 ± 0.6cm, QT-A: 1.8 ± 0.6cm; p<.001) was significantly longer and donor site morbidity (HT-A n=14, 46.7%; QT n=3, 11.5%; p=.008) significantly lower in the QT-A group.

Conclusion

Patient-reported outcome measures, knee laxity, functional testing results and re-rupture rates are similar between patients treated with QT- and HT- autografts. However, patients with QT-autograft have smaller tibial skin incisions and lower postoperative donor site morbidity.


More ISAKOS 2021: Global Content