Hamstring and Quadriceps Autografts Revascularization after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Ilias Ampatzis, John Gliatis, Fotios Efthymiou, Vasileios Metaxas, Christos Karavoulias, Eftychia Myritzi, Aikaterini Solomou

Abstract


Purpose: Evaluation of the clinical outcome and the revascularization of five-strand single-bundle hamstring (SBH) and bone-quadriceps (BQ) tendon autografts used for ACL reconstruction.

Material and Methods: 46 patients included in the study, 26 underwent reconstruction with five-strand SBH (group A), while 20 with BQ tendon autograft (group B). All patients underwent MRI three days, six and twelve months postoperatively. The evaluations included the Lachman test, Tegner activity score, Biodex isokinetic test, Lysholm score and KT-1000 arthrometer displacement. The enhancement index (EI) was calculated in three specific sites of each graft and comparisons for every time interval were performed.

Results: Lachman test, Lysholm scores, Tegner activity scores and side-to-side difference values showed a significant improvement after surgery in both groups (P<.001). Regarding the knee extensor strength, no significant difference was found between the two groups, while flexor strength was significantly better in group B. QT showed better revascularization compared to HT grafts (P<.001) at six months, while no significant difference was observed twelve months after the surgery. The intra-articular site showed a higher EI (P<.001) compared to intraosseous tibial tunnel and intraosseous juxta screw sites at six months, while a non-significant increase was found twelve months after the surgery.

Conclusions: There was no difference between the two graft types regarding the stability and the functional outcome, except flexor muscle recovery where QT graft is better. Revascularization was better in QT graft in the sixth month, but there was no significant difference in the final follow-up after twelve months’ time interval.


Keywords


Anterior cruciate ligament; magnetic resonance imaging; hamstring tendon; revascularization

Full Text:

PDF

References


Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M, et al. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42: 2363-2370. doi: 10.1177/0363546514542796

Xie X, Liu X, Chen Z, et al. A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 2015; 22: 100-110. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.11.014

Todor A, Nistor, D, Caterev S. Clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction with free quadriceps tendon autograft versus hamstring tendons autograft. A retrospective study with a minimal follow-up two years. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2019; 53(3): 180-183. doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2019.03.004

Fink C, Herbort M, Abermann E, et al. Minimally invasive harvest of a quadriceps tendon graft with or without a bone block. Arthrosc Tech. 2014; 3: 509-513. doi: 10.1016/j.eats.2014.06.003

Buescu CT, Onutu AH, Lucaciu DO, et al. Pain level after ACL reconstruction: a comparative study between free quadriceps tendon and hamstring tendons autografts. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2017; 51 :100-103. doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2017.02.011.

Ma Y, Murawski CD, Rahnemai-Azar AA, et al. Graft maturity of the reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament 6 months postoperatively: a magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of quadriceps tendon with bone block and hamstring tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23: 661-668. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3302-0.

Slone HS, Romine SE, Premkumar A, et al. Quadriceps tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comprehensive review of current literature and systematic review of clinical results. Arthroscopy. 2015; 31: 541-554. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.010.

Ntoulia A, Papadopoulou F, Ristanis S, et al. Revascularization Process of the Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft Evaluated by Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging 6 and 12 Months After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39: 1487-1496. doi: 10.1177/0363546511398039.

Ntoulia A, Papadopoulou F, Zampeli F, et al. Evaluation with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the anterior cruciate ligament graft during its healing process: A two-year prospective study. Skeletal Radiol 2012; 42: 541-552. doi: 10.1007/s00256-012-1534-y.

Grand D, Woodfield CA, Mayo-Smith WW. Practical body MRI: Protocols, applications, and image interpretation. Cambridge Medicine 1st Edition 2009.

Covey D, Sandoval K, Riffenburgh R. Contrast-Enhanced MRI Evaluation of Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone and Hamstring ACL Autograft Healing in Humans: A Prospective Randomized Study. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6(10): 2325967118800298. doi: 10.1177/2325967118800298.

Cavaignac E, Coulin B, Tscholl P, et al. Is Quadriceps Tendon Autograft a Better Choice Than Hamstring Autograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? A Comparative Study With a Mean Follow-up of 3.6 Years. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45: 1326-1332. doi: 10.1177/0363546516688665.

Lee J, Lee S, Lee MC. Outcomes of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Bone-Quadriceps Tendon Graft versus Double-Bundle Hamstring Tendon Graft. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44: 2323-2329. doi: 10.1177/0363546516650666.

Sofu H, Sahin V, Gursu S, et al. Use of quadriceps tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative analysis of clinical results. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2013; 24: 139-143. doi: 10.5606/ehc.2013.31.

Muramatsu K, Hachiya Y, Izawa H. Serial evaluation of human anterior cruciate ligament grafts by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of allografts and autografts. Arthroscopy 2008; 24: 1038-1044. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.05.014.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36162/hjr.v6i4.461

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.