Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28205075›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2017

Hamstring Autograft versus Patellar Tendon Autograft for ACL Reconstruction: Is There a Difference in Graft Failure Rate? A Meta-analysis of 47,613 Patients.

Brian T Samuelsen, Kate E Webster, Nick R Johnson, Timothy E Hewett, Aaron J Krych

4 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 195 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
195citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
25.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04519801 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy for the Post-Operative Rehabilitation of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Quadriceps Tendon Autograft: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrooke Army Medical CenterRan2022 to 2026Enrolled60ConditionsACL InjuryArmsBlood Flow Restriction (BFR) therapy, Standard REHAB
NCT05088278 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Long Term Clinical and Radiographical Outcomes of Different Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques

TypeinterventionalSponsorIstituto Ortopedico RizzoliRan2021 to 2023Enrolled41ConditionsAnterior Cruciate Ligament Tear, Osteoarthritis, KneeArmsAnatomical single bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstrings, Anatomical single bundle ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon, ACL reconstruction with over the top plus lateral plasty technique
NCT05494073 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Hybrid Remnant Repair Randomized Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHenry Ford Health SystemRan2021 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsAnterior Cruciate Ligament TearArmsACL Reconstruction with Hybrid Remnant Repair, ACL Reconstruction without Hybrid Remnant Repair
NCT05876013 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Reduced Knee Flexion Strength 18 Years After ACL Reconstruction in Hamstring Group

TypeobservationalSponsorSt. Olavs HospitalRan2022 to 2022Enrolled114ConditionsACL, ACL Injury, Cruciate Ligament Rupture, ACL TearArmsACL reconstruction
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

195 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 395 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Outcomes of hamstring graft with preserved tibial insertion for ACL reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

135 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Brian T SamuelsenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine Center, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA.
Kate E WebsterSchool of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Nick R JohnsonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine Center, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA.
Timothy E HewettDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine Center, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA.
Aaron J KrychDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine Center, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA. krych.aaron@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic · USLa Trobe University · AU

Funding

Multi-faceted Approach to Modeling ACL Injury MechanismsR01AR056259 · NIAMS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HEWETT, TIMOTHY E · 2009 to 2017
$4.9M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR056259
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBone-patellar tendon-bone (bone-tendon-bone) and four-strand hamstring tendon grafts (hamstring) are the most commonly utilized autografts for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Existing clinical trials, registry studies, and meta-analyses offer conflicting opinions regarding the most favorable graft choice. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Which graft type for ACL reconstruction (bone-tendon-bone or hamstring) has a higher risk of (1) graft rupture and/or (2) graft laxity?

methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, and high-quality national registry studies to compare the outcomes of primary ACL reconstruction with bone-tendon-bone autograft or hamstring autograft. Studies that compared these graft types were identified through a comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library). Two independent reviewers utilized the Jadad scale for RCT study quality and the Modified Coleman Methodology Score for prospective comparative and registry study quality. The included studies were analyzed for the primary outcome measure of graft rupture with or without revision ACL surgery. In surviving grafts, secondary outcomes of graft laxity were quantified by KT1000/2000™ testing, a positive pivot shift test, and a positive Lachman test. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager. A total of 47,613 ACL reconstructions (39,768 bone-tendon-bone and 7845 hamstring) from 14 RCTs, 10 prospective comparative studies, and one high-quality national registry study were included in this meta-analysis. Mean age was 28 years in both groups. Sixty-three percent of patients in the bone-tendon-bone cohort were men versus 57% of patients in the hamstring cohort. Mean followup was 68 ± 55 months.

resultsTwo hundred twelve of 7560 (2.80%) bone-tendon-bone grafts ruptured compared with 1123 of 39,510 (2.84%) in the hamstring group (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.96; p = 0.01). The number needed to treat analysis found that 235 patients would need to be treated with a bone-tendon-bone graft over a hamstring tendon graft to prevent one graft rupture. Instrumented laxity analysis showed that 22% (318 of 1433) of patients in the bone-tendon-bone group had laxity compared with 18% (869 of 4783) in the hamstring tendon group (odds ratio = 0.86; p = 0.16). Pivot shift analysis showed a positive pivot shift in 19% (291 of 1508) of the bone-tendon-bone group compared with 17% (844 of 5062) in the hamstring group (odds ratio = 0.89; p = 0.51). Lachman testing showed a positive Lachman in 25% (71 of 280) of patients receiving bone-tendon-bone grafts compared with 25% (73 of 288) in the hamstring group (odds ratio = 0.96; p = 0.84).

conclusionsIn this meta-analysis of short- to mid-term followup after primary ACL reconstruction, hamstring autografts failed at a higher rate than bone-tendon-bone autografts. However, failure rates were low in each group, the difference observed was small, and we observed few differences between graft types in terms of laxity. Both graft types remain viable options for primary ACL reconstruction, and the difference in failure rate should be one part of a larger conversation with each individual patient about graft selection that should also include potential differences in donor site morbidity, complication rates, and patient-reported outcome measures. Continued prospective collection of patient data will be important going forward as we attempt to further characterize the potential differences in outcomes attributable to graft selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

AdultAnterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionBiomechanical PhenomenaChi-Square DistributionFemaleGraft SurvivalHamstring TendonsHumansMaleOdds RatioPatellar LigamentRisk FactorsTime FactorsTransplantation, AutologousAnterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionHamstring GraftPivot ShiftPivot Shift Testing

Identifiers

PMID28205075
PMCPMC5599382
OpenAlexW2588821174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.