ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Beyond the quadriceps tendon: The rectus femoris as a distinct autograft for knee ligament reconstruction-A narrative review.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis, Treatment, and Current Controversies in Multiligament Knee Injuries: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Short-term patient-reported outcomes following rectus femoris versus quadriceps tendon and hamstring tendon autografts for ACL reconstruction with concomitant anterolateral procedure: A prospective comparative study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This narrative review synthesises the anatomical, biomechanical, and clinical evidence on the rectus femoris tendon as an autograft for knee ligament reconstruction. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar up to June 2026 with no language restrictions. A total of 35 articles describing the rectus femoris tendon as a graft for knee ligament reconstruction were included. Results: Cadaveric studies demonstrated consistent morphometric dimensions, with a mean tendon length of approximately 30 cm and graft diameters ranging from 8 to 11 mm. Biomechanical testing across four independent cadaveric studies showed that the doubled rectus femoris provides load-to-failure within the range of established anterior cruciate ligament grafts. Multiple harvesting techniques have been described, using the identification of a fat layer between the rectus femoris and the intermediate layer as the primary landmark. The graft has been applied to isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral or anteromedial ligament reinforcement, posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and revision surgery. Early clinical series reported functional outcomes comparable to hamstring tendon autografts, with low donor-site morbidity. Isokinetic evaluation showed no difference in extensor performance between rectus femoris and hamstring tendon groups at six months. Intraoperative complications included capsular violations and premature graft amputations, concentrated in initial cases and without clinical repercussions. The current clinical evidence is limited to level III and IV studies, with a maximum mean follow-up of approximately 3.5 years in revision settings and 3 years in primary reconstruction, demonstrating improvement in patient-reported outcomes and knee stability. Conclusion: The rectus femoris tendon is a viable autograft for knee ligament reconstruction, with consistent anatomy, adequate biomechanical properties, and early clinical results comparable to hamstring tendon autografts. It should be considered in individualised graft selection. Level of Evidence: Level V.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.