AJSM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
First published on November 10, 2005, doi:10.1177/0363546505279919
This version was published on February 1, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/2/213    most recent
0363546505279919v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Matsumoto, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kuroda, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Matsumoto, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kuroda, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Reconstruction
Right arrow Operative
Right arrow Graft fixation
The American Journal of Sports Medicine 34:213-219 (2006)
© 2006 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

A Comparison of Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone and Bone–Hamstring Tendon–Bone Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Akio Matsumoto, MD*, Shinichi Yoshiya, MD*, Hirotsugu Muratsu, MD*, Masayoshi Yagi, MD{dagger}, Yasunobu Iwasaki, MD{dagger}, Masahiro Kurosaka, MD* and Ryosuke Kuroda, MD*,{ddagger}

From the * Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan, and the {dagger} Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shin-Suma Hospital, Kobe, Japan

{ddagger} Address correspondence to Ryosuke Kuroda, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2, Kusunoki-cho, Chuou-ku, Kobe 650-0017 Japan (e-mail: kurodar{at}med.kobe-u.ac.jp).

Background: Most of the previous comparative studies between patellar tendon and hamstring tendon anterior cruciate ligament grafts compared grafts of different constructs fixed with different methods.

Purpose: To compare patellar tendon and hamstring tendon grafts with the same fixation method used to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament.

Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods: During the reconstructive procedure, the hamstring tendon graft was prepared as a bone-hamstring-bone graft; both bone–patellar tendon–bone and bone-hamstring-bone grafts were fixed with interference screws. Eighty consecutive patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were randomly assigned to either bone–patellar tendon–bone or bone-hamstring-bone groups. Follow-up examinations were performed for at least 5 years postoperatively. Seventy-two of the 80 patients (37 patients in the bone–patellar tendon–bone group and 35 in the bone-hamstring-bone group) were evaluated, with a mean follow-up period of 87.0 and 80.8 months, respectively. Follow-up examinations were performed using the International Knee Documentation Committee knee ligament standard and subjective knee forms.

Results: The mean KT-1000 arthrometer evaluation results showed no significant difference between the bone–patellar tendon–bone and bone-hamstring-bone groups (1.2 ± 2.1 mm and 1.7 ± 1.4 mm, respectively; P = .24). However, symptoms related to graft harvest (anterior kneeling pain) were more frequently observed in the bone–patellar tendon–bone group, and unsatisfactory results were correlated with severe kneeling pain in 3 patients from this group (P = .0056). Significant hamstring muscle weakness without complaint of functional deficit was found in the bone-hamstring-bone group (P = .0045).

Conclusion: Bone-hamstring-bone grafts were shown to reduce the risk of problems at the graft harvest site compared to bone–patellar tendon–bone grafts, with comparable results in the remaining clinical parameters tested.

Key Words: anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) • ligament reconstruction • patellar tendon • hamstring tendon




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
F. H. Fu, W. Shen, J. S. Starman, N. Okeke, and J. J. Irrgang
Primary Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Preliminary 2-Year Prospective Study
Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 2008; 36(7): 1263 - 1274.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
S. K. Van de Velde, T. J. Gill, L. E. DeFrate, R. Papannagari, and G. Li
The Effect of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Deficiency and Reconstruction on the Patellofemoral Joint
Am. J. Sports Med., June 1, 2008; 36(6): 1150 - 1159.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
M. Liden, L. Ejerhed, N. Sernert, G. Laxdal, and J. Kartus
Patellar Tendon or Semitendinosus Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Study With a 7-Year Follow-up
Am. J. Sports Med., May 1, 2007; 35(5): 740 - 748.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
G. B. Maletis, S. L. Cameron, J. J. Tengan, and R. J. Burchette
A Prospective Randomized Study of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of Patellar Tendon and Quadruple-Strand Semitendinosus/Gracilis Tendons Fixed With Bioabsorbable Interference Screws
Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 2007; 35(3): 384 - 394.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.