Comparison of Dynamic Postural Stability in Autografts Versus Allografts Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Remnant Preservation: A Prospective Study With 1-Year Follow-up

Overview

Journal Orthop J Sports Med

Date 2025 Jan 22

PMID 39839982

Authors

Hye Chang Rhim

Jin Hyuck Lee

Seo Jun Lee

Chun Hyung Kang

Seung-Beom Han

Ki-Mo Jang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Graft selection is an important part of preoperative planning for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). In addition, ACLR with the remnant preservation technique has recently gained attention due to potential benefit in bone-tendon healing, graft revascularization, and proprioceptive nerve remodeling. However, the ideal graft choice remains controversial, and there is limited research comparing autograft and allograft in ACLR with remnant preservation.

Purpose: To compare knee muscle strength, neuromuscular control, and patient-reported outcomes between hamstring (HS) tendon autografts and tibialis anterior (TA) allografts in patients undergoing ACLR with remnant preservation through posterior transseptal portal for >1 year.

Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: A total of 70 patients who underwent ACLR with remnant preservation between 2018 and 2021 using HS tendon autograft (n = 35) or TA allograft (n = 35) were analyzed at 3 different time points (preoperative, 6 months, and 12 months). Quadriceps and HS muscle strengths were measured with an isokinetic device. Proprioception was evaluated with reproduction of passive positioning for joint position sense and overall stability index (OSI) for dynamic postural stability. Patient-reported outcomes included the Lysholm score and the International Knee Documentation Committee score.

Results: There were no significant differences in demographic information including age, body mass index, concomitant meniscal injuries, and sports activities ( > .05) between HS tendon autograft and TA allograft groups. Quadriceps and HS strength in both groups, HS strength in deep knee flexion in both groups, and OSI in the HS tendon autograft group significantly improved at 12 months ( < .05). Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed significant interactions between time and grafts for OSI ([2, 136] = 5.08; = .007). The subsequent independent test demonstrated that the OSI was significantly higher in the TA allograft group (2.7 ± 1.0) than that of the HS tendon autograft group (2.1 ± 0.8) at 12 months ( = .009), indicating better dynamic postural stability in the HS tendon autograft group.

Conclusion: No significant differences were found in knee muscle strength or patient-reported outcomes between HS tendon autograft and TA allograft after ACLR with remnant preservation for up to 1 year except for dynamic postural stability favoring HS tendon autograft.

References

Kaeding C, Leger-St-Jean B, Magnussen R . Epidemiology and Diagnosis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries. Clin Sports Med. 2016; 36(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.csm.2016.08.001. View

Xie H, Fu Z, Zhong M, Deng Z, Wang C, Sun Y . Effects of remnant preservation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2022; 9:952930. PMC: 9475141. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.952930. View

Delay B, Smolinski R, Wind W, Bowman D . Current practices and opinions in ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation: results of a survey of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. Am J Knee Surg. 2001; 14(2):85-91. View

Xergia S, McClelland J, Kvist J, Vasiliadis H, Georgoulis A . The influence of graft choice on isokinetic muscle strength 4-24 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19(5):768-80. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-010-1357-0. View

Choi S, Kim M, Kwon Y, Kang H . Clinical and arthroscopic outcome of single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Comparison of remnant preservation versus conventional technique. Knee. 2017; 24(5):1025-1032. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2017.05.012. View

Sherman O, Banffy M . Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: which graft is best?. Arthroscopy. 2004; 20(9):974-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2004.08.001. View

Collins N, Misra D, Felson D, Crossley K, Roos E . Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS),.... Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012; 63 Suppl 11:S208-28. PMC: 4336550. DOI: 10.1002/acr.20632. View

Suh D, Lee J, Rhim H, Cho I, Han S, Jang K . Comparison of muscle strength and neuromuscular control up to 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between patients with dominant leg and non-dominant leg injuries. Knee. 2021; 29:15-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.01.006. View

Rhim H, Lee J, Lee S, Jeon J, Kim G, Lee K . Supervised Rehabilitation May Lead to Better Outcome than Home-Based Rehabilitation Up to 1 Year after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020; 57(1). PMC: 7824668. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57010019. View

10.

Denti M, Monteleone M, Berardi A, Panni A . Anterior cruciate ligament mechanoreceptors. Histologic studies on lesions and reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; (308):29-32. View

11.

Herzog M, Marshall S, Lund J, Pate V, Mack C, Spang J . Trends in Incidence of ACL Reconstruction and Concomitant Procedures Among Commercially Insured Individuals in the United States, 2002-2014. Sports Health. 2018; 10(6):523-531. PMC: 6204641. DOI: 10.1177/1941738118803616. View

12.

Forster M, Forster I . Patellar tendon or four-strand hamstring? A systematic review of autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2005; 12(3):225-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.06.008. View

13.

Biau D, Tournoux C, Katsahian S, Schranz P, Nizard R . Bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts versus hamstring autografts for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2006; 332(7548):995-1001. PMC: 1450040. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38784.384109.2F. View

14.

Widner M, Dunleavy M, Lynch S . Outcomes Following ACL Reconstruction Based on Graft Type: Are all Grafts Equivalent?. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019; 12(4):460-465. PMC: 6942094. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-019-09588-w. View

15.

Wang S, Zhang C, Cai Y, Lin X . Autograft or Allograft? Irradiated or Not? A Contrast Between Autograft and Allograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis. Arthroscopy. 2018; 34(12):3258-3265. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.06.053. View

16.

Dhillon M, Bali K, Vasistha R . Immunohistological evaluation of proprioceptive potential of the residual stump of injured anterior cruciate ligaments (ACL). Int Orthop. 2010; 34(5):737-41. PMC: 2903166. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-009-0948-1. View

17.

Bottoni C, Smith E, Shaha J, Shaha S, Raybin S, Tokish J . Autograft Versus Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study With a Minimum 10-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43(10):2501-9. DOI: 10.1177/0363546515596406. View

18.

Li B, Wang Y, Bai L, Wen Y . Changes of mechanoreceptors in different-state remnants of ruptured anterior cruciate ligament. Int Orthop. 2018; 42(11):2613-2618. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3933-8. View

19.

Bowman E, Limpisvasti O, Cole B, ElAttrache N . Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Graft Preference Most Dependent on Patient Age: A Survey of United States Surgeons. Arthroscopy. 2021; 37(5):1559-1566. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.01.042. View

20.

Lautamies R, Harilainen A, Kettunen J, Sandelin J, Kujala U . Isokinetic quadriceps and hamstring muscle strength and knee function 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison between bone-patellar tendon-bone and hamstring tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008; 16(11):1009-16. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-008-0598-7. View