J Knee Surg 2022; 35(08): 858-861
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721124
Original Article

Effects of the Graft Type Used for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction on Isokinetic Muscle Strength and Quality of Life

1   Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Meram Faculty of Health Science, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
,
2   Fenerbahce Sports Club, Kadikoy, Istanbul, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Funding This research was supported by Necmettin Erbakan University Scientific Research Projects Management Unit (grant number 132018017).

Abstract

There is no consensus about which graft type should be used in patients who will undergo anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction so far. In this study, it was aimed to compare the quality of life, knee functions, and isokinetic muscle strength of patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon (HT) and bone–tendon–bone (BTB) autografts. Total 40 patients with ACL reconstruction (20 in HT group and 20 in BTB group), at least 1 year after the operation, all injured during sports activity were included in this study. Flexor and extensor muscle groups of both affected and unaffected knees at angular velocities of 60 and 180 degrees/s were recorded. Lysholm knee score questionnaire and Short Form (SF)-36 were administered to all patients before the isokinetic tests. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups at any angular velocity in isokinetic evaluation. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in regard to Lysholm score. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups in SF-36 physical function domain score (p < 0.01). The results demonstrated that the SF-36 questionnaire can easily be applied to this patient population. There was only one significant difference in the SF-36 physical function component scores between the two groups. The quality of life, knee functions, and isokinetic muscle strength were similar in patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with HT and BTB.



Publication History

Received: 20 February 2020

Accepted: 05 October 2020

Article published online:
03 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 
  • References

  • 1 Laboute E, Savalli L, Puig P. et al. Analysis of return to competition and repeat rupture for 298 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with patellar or hamstring tendon autograft in sportspeople. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2010; 53 (10) 598-614
  • 2 Bonci CM. Assessment and evaluation of predisposing factors to anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Athl Train 1999; 34 (02) 155-164
  • 3 Woo SL, Moon DK, Miura K, Fu Y-C, Nguyen TD. Basic science of ligament healing: c. anterior cruciate ligament graft biomechanics and knee kinematics. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2005; 13 (03) 161-169
  • 4 Johnson RJ, Beynnon BD, Nichols CE, Renstrom PA. The treatment of injuries of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74 (01) 140-151
  • 5 Brinckmann P, Frobin W, Leivseth G. Musculoskeletal Biomechanics. Stuttgard: Thieme; 2002
  • 6 Murrell GA, Maddali S, Horovitz L, Oakley SP, Warren RF. The effects of time course after anterior cruciate ligament injury in correlation with meniscal and cartilage loss. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (01) 9-14
  • 7 Aglietti P, Buzzi R, Zaccherotti G, De Biase P. Patellar tendon versus doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1994; 22 (02) 211-217 , discussion 217–218
  • 8 Xie X, Liu X, Chen Z, Yu Y, Peng S, Li Q. A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 2015; 22 (02) 100-110
  • 9 Xie X, Xiao Z, Li Q. et al. Increased incidence of osteoarthritis of knee joint after ACL reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts than hamstring autografts: a meta-analysis of 1,443 patients at a minimum of 5 years. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015; 25 (01) 149-159
  • 10 Anderson MJ, Browning III WM, Urband CE, Kluczynski MA, Bisson LJ. A systematic summary of systematic reviews on the topic of the anterior cruciate ligament. Orthop J Sports Med 2016; 4 (03) 2325967116634074
  • 11 Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 1982; 10 (03) 150-154
  • 12 Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (06) 473-483
  • 13 Webster KE, Feller JA. Use of the Short Form health surveys as an outcome measure for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (05) 1142-1148
  • 14 Celik D, Coşkunsu D, Kiliçoğlu O. Translation and cultural adaptation of the Turkish Lysholm knee scale: ease of use, validity, and reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (08) 2602-2610
  • 15 Demiral Y, Ergor G, Unal B. et al. Normative data and discriminative properties of short form 36 (SF-36) in Turkish urban population. BMC Public Health 2006; 6: 247
  • 16 Shultz SJ, Schmitz RJ, Cameron KL. et al. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Research Retreat VIII Summary Statement: An Update on Injury Risk Identification and Prevention Across the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Continuum, March 14-16, 2019, Greensboro, NC. J Athl Train 2019; 54 (09) 970-984
  • 17 Meta F, Lizzio VA, Jildeh TR, Makhni EC. Which patient reported outcomes to collect after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Ann Joint 2017; 2 (05) 21
  • 18 Filbay SR, Ackerman IN, Russell TG, Macri EM, Crossley KM. Health-related quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (05) 1247-1255
  • 19 Siebold R, Webster KE, Feller JA, Sutherland AG, Elliott J. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in females: a comparison of hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (11) 1070-1076
  • 20 Sajovic M, Strahovnik A, Dernovsek MZ, Skaza K. Quality of life and clinical outcome comparison of semitendinosus and gracilis tendon versus patellar tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an 11-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (10) 2161-2169
  • 21 Xergia SA, McClelland JA, Kvist J, Vasiliadis HS, Georgoulis AD. The influence of graft choice on isokinetic muscle strength 4-24 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (05) 768-780
  • 22 Abdalla RJ, Monteiro DA, Dias L, Correia DM, Cohen M, Forgas A. Comparison between the results achieved in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with two kinds of autologous grafts: patellar tendon versus semitendinous and gracilis. Rev Bras Ortop 2015; 44 (03) 204-207