Comparison of Medial Hamstring Length Between Harvesting Methods Using Anterior and Posterior Approaches

Overview

Journal Orthop J Sports Med

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 Nov 13

PMID 39534391

Authors

W P Yau

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Medial hamstring tendons harvesting can be performed through either an anterior or a posterior approach. It has been suggested that using a posterior approach may result in a longer length of harvestable tendon compared with an anterior approach.

Hypothesis: There would be no difference in the length of the harvestable tendon between the anterior and posterior approaches.

Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at the primary institution using prospectively collected data from skeletally mature Chinese patients who underwent medial hamstring tendons harvesting between January 2008 and December 2021. Patients were excluded if they had experienced graft harvesting complication or if only 1 medial hamstring tendon was harvested. One-to-one exact matching was performed between the 2 approaches based on body height and sex. The outcome assessed was the length of the harvested tendon.

Results: A total of 536 patients underwent medial hamstring tendons harvesting using an anterior approach, while 58 underwent it using a posterior approach, all of whom met the inclusion criteria. A group of 54 matched pairs were identified. The length of the harvested semitendinosus tendon was 263 ± 29 mm in the anterior approach and 256 ± 28 mm in the posterior approach ( = .09; Student test). The mean difference in the length of the harvested semitendinosus tendon between the 2 approaches was 7 mm. The length of the gracilis tendon was 226 ± 29 mm and 223 ± 29 mm in the anterior approach and the posterior approach, respectively ( = .30; Student test).

Conclusion: In a retrospective 1:1 case-control study with exact matching of body height and sex, it was found that there was no difference in the length of the semitendinosus tendon and the gracilis tendon harvested using a posterior approach compared with an anterior approach. The mean difference between the 2 approaches was 7 mm for the semitendinosus tendon and 3 mm for the gracilis tendon, respectively.

References

Rojas G, Perelli S, Ibanez M, Formagnana M, Ormazabal I, Monllau J . Effect of Modified Lemaire Anterolateral Extra-articular Tenodesis on the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Maturity Signal of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Hamstring Graft. Am J Sports Med. 2021; 49(9):2379-2386. DOI: 10.1177/03635465211018858. View

Shu H, Bodendorfer B, Michaelson E, Argintar E . Posteromedial versus Anteromedial Hamstring Tendon Harvest for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparison of Accidental Gracilis Harvests, Outcomes, and Operative Times. J Knee Surg. 2018; 32(11):1121-1127. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675796. View

Mariscalco M, Flanigan D, Mitchell J, Pedroza A, Jones M, Andrish J . The influence of hamstring autograft size on patient-reported outcomes and risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) Cohort Study. Arthroscopy. 2013; 29(12):1948-53. PMC: 3844091. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.08.025. View

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. 2015; 40(1):173-81. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2818-3. View

Franz W, Baumann A . Minimally invasive semitendinosus tendon harvesting from the popliteal fossa versus conventional hamstring tendon harvesting for ACL reconstruction: A prospective, randomised controlled trial in 100 patients. Knee. 2016; 23(1):106-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2015.09.001. View

Cavaignac E, Mesnier T, Marot V, Fernandez A, Faruch M, Berard E . Effect of Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Incorporation. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020; 8(11):2325967120960097. PMC: 7711232. DOI: 10.1177/2325967120960097. View

Alomar A, Nasser A, Kumar A, Kumar M, Das S, Mittal S . Hamstring graft diameter above 7 mm has a lower risk of failure following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021; 30(1):288-297. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-021-06503-0. View

Papastergiou S, Stergios P, Konstantinidis G, Georgios K, Natsis K, Konstantinos N . Adequacy of semitendinosus tendon alone for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft and prediction of hamstring graft size by evaluating simple anthropometric parameters. Anat Res Int. 2012; 2012:424158. PMC: 3414003. DOI: 10.1155/2012/424158. View

Janssen R, van der Velden M, van den Besselaar M, Reijman M . Prediction of length and diameter of hamstring tendon autografts for knee ligament surgery in Caucasians. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 25(4):1199-1204. PMC: 5420370. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3678-5. View

10.

Prodromos C . Posterior mini-incision hamstring harvest. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2010; 18(1):12-4. DOI: 10.1097/JSA.0b013e3181bf661d. View

11.

Tuman J, Diduch D, Rubino L, Baumfeld J, Nguyen H, Hart J . Predictors for hamstring graft diameter in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(11):1945-9. DOI: 10.1177/0363546507304667. View

12.

Gupta R, Malhotra A, Masih G, Khanna T . Equation-based precise prediction of length of hamstring tendons and quadrupled graft diameter by various anthropometric variables for knee ligament reconstruction in Indian population. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017; 25(1):2309499017690997. DOI: 10.1177/2309499017690997. View

13.

Garcia Hernandez J, Lopez-Vidriero Tejedor E, Castaneda Gonzalez S, Yrayzoz Fuentes J, Perianez Moreno R, Saval Benitez J . Posterior hamstring harvest improves aesthetic satisfaction and decreases sensory complications as compared to the classic anterior approach in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. J Exp Orthop. 2022; 9(1):109. PMC: 9633883. DOI: 10.1186/s40634-022-00547-y. View

14.

Grassi A, Perdisa F, Samuelsson K, Svantesson E, Romagnoli M, Raggi F . Association between incision technique for hamstring tendon harvest in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and the risk of injury to the infra-patellar branch of the saphenous nerve: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018; 26(8):2410-2423. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-4858-x. View

15.

Ramkumar P, Hadley M, Jones M, Farrow L . Hamstring Autograft in ACL Reconstruction: A 13-Year Predictive Analysis of Anthropometric Factors and Surgeon Trends Relating to Graft Size. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018; 6(6):2325967118779788. PMC: 6024536. DOI: 10.1177/2325967118779788. View

16.

Aitchison A, Schlichte L, Heath M, Fabricant P, Green D . Posterior Approach With Small Incision Is a Safe Alternative to Anterior Approach for Hamstring Autograft Harvest in Adolescents. HSS J. 2022; 18(4):498-503. PMC: 9527548. DOI: 10.1177/15563316221085262. View

17.

Park S, Oh H, Park S, Lee J, Lee S, Yoon K . Factors predicting hamstring tendon autograft diameters and resulting failure rates after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012; 21(5):1111-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-012-2085-4. View

18.

Sundararajan S, Rajagopalakrishnan R, Rajasekaran S . Is height the best predictor for adequacy of semitendinosus-alone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A study of hamstring graft dimensions and anthropometric measurements. Int Orthop. 2015; 40(5):1025-31. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2882-8. View

19.

Kang H, Dong C, Wang F . Small hamstring autograft is defined by a cut-off diameter of 7 mm and not recommended with allograft augmentation in single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019; 27(11):3650-3659. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05475-6. View