Additional Suture Augmentation to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hamstring Autografts Bring No Benefits to Clinical Results, Graft Maturation and Graft-bone Interface Healing

Overview

Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology

Date 2024 Apr 17

PMID 38632590

Authors

Qingyang Meng

Ruilan Dai

Cheng Wang

Weili Shi

Yanfang Jiang

Ningjing Liu

Rui Li

Yingfang Ao

Xi Gong

Yong Ma

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: From the perspective of graft protection and early rehabilitation during the maturation and remodeling phases of graft healing, suture augmentation (SA) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has attracted more and more attention.

Study Design: Retrospective study.

Purpose: To determine whether the additional SA affects clinical results, graft maturation and graft-bone interface healing during two years follow-up after ACLR.

Methods: 20 ACLRs with additional SA (ACLR-SA group) and 20 ACLRs without additional SA (ACLR group) were performed between January 2020 and December 2021 by the same surgeon and were retrospectively analyzed. Pre- and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, Lysholm scores, graft failure and reoperation were evaluated. The signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of autografts and the signal intensity of graft-bone interface were analyzed. All 40 patients in ACLR-SA group and ACLR group completed 2-years follow-up.

Results: There was no patient in the two cohorts experienced graft failure and reoperation. The postoperative IKDC and Lysholm scores have been significantly improved compared with preoperative scored in both ACLR-SA group and ACLR group, however, there was no significant difference between two groups. The SNQ of proximal graft of ACLR-SA group (14.78 ± 8.62 vs. 8.1 ± 5.5, p = 0.041) was significantly greater while the grades of graft-bone interface healing of posterior tibial was significantly lower than that of ACLR group at 1-year postoperatively (p = 0.03), respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups of the SNQ of proximal, distal medial graft segments, and the graft-bone interface healing grades of anterior femoral, posterior femoral, anterior tibial and posterior tibial at other time points (p>0.05).

Conclusions: The additional SA in ACLR had no effect on IKDC scores, Lysholm scores, graft maturation and graft-bone interface healing at 2-year postoperatively. Our research does not support the routine use of SA in ACLR.

References

Parkes C, Leland D, Levy B, Stuart M, Camp C, Saris D . Hamstring Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using an All-Inside Technique With and Without Independent Suture Tape Reinforcement. Arthroscopy. 2020; 37(2):609-616. PMC: 7867617. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.09.002. View

Frangie R, Warth R, Harner C . Editorial Commentary: Will Suture Tape Augmentation Prove to Be the Answer to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Remodeling, Ultimate Strength, and Safe Return to Play?. Arthroscopy. 2019; 36(2):490-491. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.11.129. View

Bodendorfer B . Editorial Commentary: The Anterior Cruciate Ligament May Be Safer Wearing a Suture Tape Augmentation Seat Belt: Click It or Ticket. Arthroscopy. 2021; 37(11):3344-3346. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.06.013. View

Allom R, Wood J, Chen D, MacDessi S . The Addition of Suture Tape to the Hamstring Graft Construct Does Not Reduce Instrumented Knee Laxity Following ACL Reconstruction. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2022; 4(2):e545-e551. PMC: 9042745. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.11.015. View

Pyrz K, Wood A, Campbell C, Brabston E, Evely T, Casp A . Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Quadriceps Tendon Autograft: Surgical Technique Using Augmentation With a Biocomposite Scaffold. Arthrosc Tech. 2024; 12(12):e2335-e2341. PMC: 10773234. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2023.08.003. View

Ariel de Lima D, Helito C, Lima F, Leite J . Surgical indications for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with extra-articular lateral tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstruction. Rev Bras Ortop. 2018; 53(6):661-667. PMC: 6204529. DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2018.09.007. View

Getgood A, Bryant D, Litchfield R, Heard M, McCormack R, Rezansoff A . Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Reduces Failure of Hamstring Tendon Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: 2-Year Outcomes From the STABILITY Study Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48(2):285-297. DOI: 10.1177/0363546519896333. View

Bachmaier S, Smith P, Bley J, Wijdicks C . Independent Suture Tape Reinforcement of Small and Standard Diameter Grafts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Full Construct Model. Arthroscopy. 2017; 34(2):490-499. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.10.037. View

Gwinner C, Janosec M, Wierer G, Wagner M, Weiler A . Graft Survivorship After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Based on Tibial Slope. Am J Sports Med. 2021; 49(14):3802-3808. PMC: 8649463. DOI: 10.1177/03635465211049234. View

10.

Helito C, Sobrado M, Moreira da Silva A, Padua V, Guimaraes T, Bonadio M . The Addition of Either an Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or an Iliotibial Band Tenodesis Is Associated With a Lower Failure Rate After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparative Trial. Arthroscopy. 2022; 39(2):308-319. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.06.039. View

11.

Yao S, Fu B, Yung P . Graft healing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2021; 25:8-15. PMC: 8134949. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmart.2021.03.003. View

12.

Rodeo S, Kawamura S, Ma C, Deng X, Sussman P, Hays P . The effect of osteoclastic activity on tendon-to-bone healing: an experimental study in rabbits. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(10):2250-9. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00409. View

13.

Vavken P, Sadoghi P, Murray M . The effect of platelet concentrates on graft maturation and graft-bone interface healing in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in human patients: a systematic review of controlled trials. Arthroscopy. 2011; 27(11):1573-83. PMC: 3206130. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.06.003. View

14.

Moatshe G, Kweon C, Gee A, Engebretsen L . Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is not for all-a need for improved patient selection. Br J Sports Med. 2021; 55(22):1245-1246. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104304. View

15.

Itoh S, Muneta T, Shinomiya K, Ichinose S . Electron microscopic evaluation of the effects of stress-shielding on maturation of the mid-substance and ligament-bone junction of the reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament in rabbits. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2004; 10(3):185-90. DOI: 10.1023/a:1008945709532. View

16.

Pearle A, McAllister D, Howell S . Rationale for Strategic Graft Placement in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: I.D.E.A.L. Femoral Tunnel Position. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015; 44(6):253-8. View

17.

Kondo E, Yasuda K, Katsura T, Hayashi R, Kotani Y, Tohyama H . Biomechanical and histological evaluations of the doubled semitendinosus tendon autograft after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in sheep. Am J Sports Med. 2011; 40(2):315-24. DOI: 10.1177/0363546511426417. View

18.

Heusdens C . Editorial Commentary: Independent Suture Tape Reinforcement Could Be a Part of the Holy Anterior Cruciate Ligament Grail Puzzle?. Arthroscopy. 2021; 37(2):617-618. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.11.013. View

19.

Ciccone 2nd W, Bratton D, Weinstein D, Elias J . Viscoelasticity and temperature variations decrease tension and stiffness of hamstring tendon grafts following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(5):1071-8. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00576. View

20.

Ahn J, Lee S, Choi S, Lim T . Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring tendon autografts: comparison of remnant bundle preservation and standard technique. Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38(9):1768-77. DOI: 10.1177/0363546510368132. View