Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Five-Strand Hamstring Tendon Autograft and Quadrupled Hamstring Tendon Autograft for Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Filipinos An Ambi-directional Cohort Study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are common, especially in athletes, and are often treated with hamstring tendon autografts using a single-bundle technique. Graft diameter is crucial, with evidence showing that larger grafts reduce failure risk. Asian populations typically have smaller graft diameters. This study compares the clinical outcomes of the five-strand versus the quadrupled technique in a Filipino Asian population to assess potential benefits in graft thickness and knee stability.
Objective.
To compare the functional outcomes, graft sizes, failure rates, and time to return to sports between five-strand and quadrupled hamstring tendon autografts in ACL reconstruction.
Methodology. This ambi-directional cohort study involved Asian Filipino patients aged 18–50 with unilateral ACL tears who underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction with either quadrupled or five-strand hamstring autografts between January 2022 and August 2023. Data on graft dimensions, IKDC scores, and time to return to sports were collected pre- and postoperatively. The analysis included descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact test, t-tests, and ANOVA, with significance at p <0.05.
Results. The study included 18 patients, showing no significant differences in demographic characteristics such as age (24.78 vs. 27.67 years, p = 0.202), height (1.71 vs. 1.64 meters, p = 0.146), weight (84.43 vs. 74.98 kg, p = 0.252) body mass index (28.95 vs. 27.98 kg/m², p = 0.714), or average return to sports (10.63 vs. 11.83 months, p = 0.642). There was no significant difference in thicknesses (p = 0.089) and lengths (p = 0.885) of the graft. IKDC scores showed no significant differences between the two groups in pre- or postoperative outcomes at six months and one year. Complications were minimal, with no significant difference found.
Conclusion. Both the five-strand and quadrupled techniques demonstrated similar demographics, graft dimensions, and clinical outcomes, indicating comparable functional results and safety profiles.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Lipscomb AB, Johnston RK, Snyder RB, Warburton MJ, Gilbert PP. Evaluation of hamstring muscle strength following use of semitendinosus and gracilis tendons to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10(6):340–2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7180953 https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658201000603
Otero AL, Hutcheson L. A comparison of the doubled semitendinosus/gracilis and central third of the patellar tendon autografts in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(2):143–8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8461070 https://doi.org/0.1016/s0749-8063(05)80363-9
Mott HW. Semitendinosus anatomic reconstruction for cruciate ligament insufficiency. Clin Orthop. 1983;(172):90–2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6822010
Pagnani MJ, Warner JJ, O'Brien SJ, Warren RF. Anatomic considerations in harvesting the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons and a technique of harvest. Am J Sports Med. 1993;21(4):565–71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8368418 https://doi.org/10.1177/036354659302100414
Hamner DL, Brown CH Jr, Steiner ME, Hecker AT, Hayes WC. 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):549–57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10225801 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199904000-00013
Magnussen RA, Lawrence JT, West RL, Toth AP, Taylor DC, Garrett WE. Graft size and patient age are predictors of early revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(4):526–31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22305299 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2011.11.024
Wright RW, Magnussen RA, Dunn WR, Spindler KP. Ipsilateral graft and contralateral ACL rupture at five years or more following ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(1):1159–65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21776554 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110421 https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00898
Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A. Risk of tearing the intact anterior cruciate ligament in the contralateral knee and rupturing the anterior cruciate ligament graft during the first 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective MOON cohort study. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(7):1131–4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17452511 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546507301318
Spragg L, Chen J, Mirzayan R, Love R, Maletis G. The effect of autologous hamstring graft diameter on the likelihood for revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1475–81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27002103 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516634011
Snaebjörnsson T, Hamrin Senorski E, Ayeni OR, et al. Graft diameter as a predictor for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and KOOS and EQ-5D values: a cohort study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register based on 2240 patients. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(9):2092–7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28460194 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517704177
Ho SW, Tan TJ, Lee KT. Role of anthropometric data in the prediction of 4-stranded hamstring graft size in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Orthop Belg. 2016;82(1):72–7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26984657
Tang SPK, Wan KHM, Lee RHL, Wong KKH, Wong KK. Influence of hamstring autograft diameter on graft failure rate in Chinese population after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2020;22(1):45–8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32913712 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7453058 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmart.2020.07.005
Mariscalco MW, Flanigan DC, Mitchell J, et al. The influence of hamstring autograft size on patient-reported outcomes and risk of revision following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a MOON cohort study. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(12):1948–53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24140144 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844091 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2013.08.025
Goyal S, Matias N, Pandey V, Acharya K. Are pre-operative anthropometric parameters helpful in predicting length and thickness of quadrupled hamstring graft for ACL reconstruction in adults? A prospective study and literature review. Int Orthop. 2016;40(1):173–81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26105766 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2818-3
Lavery KP, Rasmussen JF, Dhawan A. Five-strand hamstring autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech. 2014;3(4): e423–6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25276603 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2014.01.013
Krishna L, Tan XY, Wong FKL, Toh SJ. A 5-strand hamstring autograft achieves outcomes comparable to those of a 4-strand hamstring autograft with a graft diameter of 8 mm or more in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(3):232596711876081. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29581996 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5862372 https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118760815
Adams D, Logerstedt D, Hunter-Giordano A, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Current concepts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a criterion-based rehabilitation progression. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(7):601-14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22402434 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576892 https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2012.3871
Logerstedt DS, Scalzitti DA, Bennell KL, et al. Knee pain and mobility impairments: meniscal and articular cartilage lesions revision 2018. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48(2):A1-50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29385940 https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2018.0301