Compared with a patellar tendon autograft (PT), a hamstring tendon autograft (HT) has an increased risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). There are no studies analyzing whether this can be explained by inferior fixation devices used in HT reconstruction or whether the revision risk of ACLR with an HT or a PT is influenced by the graft fixation.
Purpose:
To compare the risk of revision and the revision rates between the most commonly used combinations of fixation for HTs with PTs.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
Methods:
This study included all patients registered in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry from 2004 through 2013 who underwent primary PT or HT ACLR with no concomitant ligament injury and known graft fixation. The 2-year revision rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) for revision at 2 years were calculated using multivariate Cox regression models.
Results:
A total of 14,034 patients with primary ACLR were identified: 3806 patients with PTs and 10,228 patients with HTs; the mean follow-up time was 4.5 years. In the HT group, 5 different combinations of fixation in the femur/tibia were used in more than 500 patients: Endobutton/RCI screw (n = 2339), EZLoc/WasherLoc (n = 1352), Endobutton/Biosure HA (n = 1209), Endobutton/Intrafix (n = 687), and TransFix II/metal interference screw (MIS) (n = 620). The crude 2-year revision rate for patients with PTs was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.0%), and for patients with HTs, it ranged between the groups from 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-2.4%) for TransFix II/MIS to 5.5% (95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%) for Endobutton/Biosure HA. When adjusted for detected confounding factors and compared with patients with PTs, the HR for revision at 2 years was increased for all HT combinations used in more than 500 patients, and the combinations Endobutton/Biosure HA and Endobutton/Intrafix had the highest HRs of 7.3 (95% CI, 4.4-12.1) and 5.5 (95% CI, 3.1-9.9), respectively.
Conclusion:
The choice of fixation after ACLR with an HT has a significant effect on a patient’s risk of revision. In this study population, none of the examined combinations of HT fixation had a revision rate as low as that for a PT.
AgaCRasmussenMTSmithSD. Biomechanical comparison of interference screws and combination screw and sheath devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the tibial side. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(4):841-848.
2.
AhmadCSGardnerTRGrohMArnoukJLevineWN. Mechanical properties of soft tissue femoral fixation devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(3):635-640.
3.
ArthurssonAJFurnesOEspehaugBHavelinLISoreideJA. Validation of data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Patient Register: 5,134 primary total hip arthroplasties and revisions operated at a single hospital between 1987 and 2003. Acta Orthop. 2005;76(6):823-828.
4.
BaumfeldJADiduchDRRubinoLJ. Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft: a comparison between double cross-pin and suspensory graft fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(12):1108-1113.
5.
BrandJJrWeilerACabornDNBrownCHJrJohnsonDL. Graft fixation in cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(5):761-774.
6.
BrownCHJrWilsonDRHeckerATFerragamoM. Graft-bone motion and tensile properties of hamstring and patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament femoral graft fixation under cyclic loading. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(9):922-935.
7.
BuelowJUSieboldREllermannA. A prospective evaluation of tunnel enlargement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings: extracortical versus anatomical fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002;10(2):80-85.
8.
ClatworthyMGAnnearPBulowJUBartlettRJ. Tunnel widening in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective evaluation of hamstring and patella tendon grafts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7(3):138-145.
9.
DrogsetJOGrontvedtTTegnanderA. Endoscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts fixed with bioabsorbable or metal interference screws: a prospective randomized study of the clinical outcome. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(8):1160-1165.
10.
DrogsetJOStrandTUppheimGOdegardBBoeAGrontvedtT. Autologous patellar tendon and quadrupled hamstring grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized multicenter review of different fixation methods. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(8):1085-1093.
11.
DrogsetJOStraumeLGBjorkmoIMyhrG. A prospective randomized study of ACL-reconstructions using bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts fixed with bioabsorbable or metal interference screws. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(5):753-759.
FaunoPKaalundS. Tunnel widening after hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is influenced by the type of graft fixation used: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(11):1337-1341.
14.
FroschSRittstiegABalcarekP. Bioabsorbable interference screw versus bioabsorbable cross pins: influence of femoral graft fixation on the clinical outcome after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2251-2256.
15.
GifstadTDrogsetJOGrontvedtTHortemoGS. Femoral fixation of hamstring tendon grafts in ACL reconstructions: the 2-year follow-up results of a prospective randomized controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(9):2153-2162.
16.
GifstadTFossOAEngebretsenL. Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2319-2328.
17.
GrananLPBahrRSteindalKFurnesOEngebretsenL. Development of a national cruciate ligament surgery registry: the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):308-315.
HamnerDLBrownCHJrSteinerMEHeckerATHayesWC. Hamstring tendon grafts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: biomechanical evaluation of the use of multiple strands and tensioning techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(4):549-557.
20.
HarilainenASandelinJ. A prospective comparison of 3 hamstring ACL fixation devices—Rigidfix, BioScrew, and Intrafix—randomized into 4 groups with 2 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(4):699-706.
21.
HarveyAThomasNPAmisAA. Fixation of the graft in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(5):593-603.
22.
HoherJMollerHDFuFH. Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: fact or fiction?Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6(4):231-240.
23.
HoldenJPGroodESKorvickDLCummingsJFButlerDLBylski-AustrowDI. In vivo forces in the anterior cruciate ligament: direct measurements during walking and trotting in a quadruped. J Biomech. 1994;27(5):517-526.
24.
HsuSLWangCJ. Graft failure versus graft fixation in ACL reconstruction: histological and immunohistochemical studies in rabbits. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(9):1197-1202.
25.
IbrahimSAAbdul GhafarSMarwanY. Intratunnel versus extratunnel autologous hamstring double-bundle graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of 2 femoral fixation procedures. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):161-168.
26.
JarvelaTMoisalaASPaakkalaTPaakkalaA. Tunnel enlargement after double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(12):1349-1357.
27.
KamelgerFSOnderUSchmoelzWTecklenburgKAroraRFinkC. Suspensory fixation of grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison of 3 implants. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(7):767-776.
28.
KousaPJarvinenTLVihavainenMKannusPJarvinenM. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, part I: femoral site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):174-181.
29.
KousaPJarvinenTLVihavainenMKannusPJarvinenM. The fixation strength of six hamstring tendon graft fixation devices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, part II: tibial site. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):182-188.
30.
KurosakaMYoshiyaSAndrishJT. A biomechanical comparison of different surgical techniques of graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 1987;15(3):225-229.
31.
LaxdalGKartusJErikssonBIFaxenESernertNKarlssonJ. Biodegradable and metallic interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery using hamstring tendon grafts: prospective randomized study of radiographic results and clinical outcome. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(10):1574-1580.
32.
MaCBFrancisKTowersJIrrgangJFuFHHarnerCH. Hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of bioabsorbable interference screw and Endobutton-post fixation. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(2):122-128.
33.
MaletisGBInacioMCDesmondJLFunahashiTT. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: association of graft choice with increased risk of early revision. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(5):623-628.
34.
McGuireDABarberFAElrodBFPaulosLE. Bioabsorbable interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(5):463-473.
35.
MoisalaASJarvelaTPaakkalaAPaakkalaTKannusPJarvinenM. Comparison of the bioabsorbable and metal screw fixation after ACL reconstruction with a hamstring autograft in MRI and clinical outcome: a prospective randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(12):1080-1086.
36.
MyersPLoganMStokesABoydKWattsM. Bioabsorbable versus titanium interference screws with hamstring autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized trial with 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(7):817-823.
37.
NebelungWBeckerRMerkelMRopkeM. Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with semitendinosus tendon using Endobutton fixation on the femoral side. Arthroscopy. 1998;14(8):810-815.
38.
NurmiJTSievanenHKannusPJarvinenMJarvinenTL. Porcine tibia is a poor substitute for human cadaver tibia for evaluating interference screw fixation. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(3):765-771.
39.
PerssonAFjeldsgaardKGjertsenJE. Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004-2012. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):285-291.
40.
PetersenWLaprellH. Insertion of autologous tendon grafts to the bone: a histological and immunohistochemical study of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2000;8(1):26-31.
41.
Rahr-WagnerLThillemannTMPedersenABLindM. Comparison of hamstring tendon and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a nationwide population-based cohort study: results from the Danish registry of knee ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):278-284.
42.
Rahr-WagnerLThillemannTMPedersenABLindMC. Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(1):98-105.
43.
RoosEMRoosHPLohmanderLSEkdahlCBeynnonBD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28(2):88-96.
44.
RoseTHeppPVenusJStockmarCJostenCLillH. Prospective randomized clinical comparison of femoral transfixation versus bioscrew fixation in hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction: a preliminary report. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(8):730-738.
45.
SchefflerSUSudkampNPGockenjanAHoffmannRFWeilerA. Biomechanical comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon graft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: the impact of fixation level and fixation method under cyclic loading. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(3):304-315.
46.
SteinerMEHeckerATBrownCHJrHayesWC. Anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation: comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts. Am J Sports Med. 1994;22(2):240-246, discussion 246-247.
47.
StenerSEjerhedLSernertNLaxdalGRostgard-ChristensenLKartusJ. A long-term, prospective, randomized study comparing biodegradable and metal interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: radiographic results and clinical outcome. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(8):1598-1605.
48.
YtterstadKGrananLPYtterstadB. Registration rate in the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register: large-volume hospitals perform better. Acta Orthop. 2012;83(2):174-178.
