CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1779335
Artigo de Atualização

New Graft Choices for ACL Reconstruction: Update Article

Article in several languages: português | English
1   Centro de Traumatologia do Esporte, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil
,
1   Centro de Traumatologia do Esporte, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil
,
1   Centro de Traumatologia do Esporte, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil
,
2   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brasil
,
3   Centro de Traumatologia do Esporte, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common procedure for injuries to this ligament, especially in athletes. There are different types of grafts used, and the choice depends on several factors. Autologous grafts, from the patients themselves, are the most common option, with rapid incorporation and a lower failure rate. Allografts from donors have their role in specific cases. Synthetic grafts, used in the 1980s, have advantages such as the absence of morbidity at the donor site, but studies have shown long-term complications. Hybrid grafts, combining autologous grafts and allografts, have gained interest, allowing a larger diameter and reducing morbidity. Peroneus longus tendon autograft has received attention, with positive results, good knee function and less hypotrophy of the thigh at the donor site. Autologous quadriceps tendon graft has gained popularity, with results comparable to patellar and flexor tendon grafts, lower morbidity at the donor site and a lower rate of re-rupture. The choice of graft has evolved, with autologous flexor grafts being preferred for less active patients and patellar grafts with bone fragments for high-performance athletes. Allografts, synthetic and hybrid grafts have their role in specific circumstances. The choice must be based on scientific evidence, considering advantages and disadvantages. ACL reconstruction is a complex procedure that requires individual considerations to select the most appropriate graft.

Financial Support

There was no financial support from public, commercial or non-profit sources.


Work developed at the Sports Traumatology Center, Paulista School of Medicine, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 12 July 2023

Accepted: 10 August 2023

Article published online:
23 April 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 
  • Referências

  • 1 Herzog MM, Marshall SW, Lund JL, Pate V, Mack CD, Spang JT. Trends in Incidence of ACL Reconstruction and Concomitant Procedures Among Commercially Insured Individuals in the United States, 2002-2014. Sports Health 2018; 10 (06) 523-531
  • 2 Galatz LM, Gerstenfeld L, Heber-Katz E, Rodeo SA. Tendon regeneration and scar formation: The concept of scarless healing. J Orthop Res 2015; 33 (06) 823-831
  • 3 Bottoni CR, Smith EL, Shaha J. et al. 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) 2501-2509
  • 4 Shumborski S, Salmon LJ, Monk C, Heath E, Roe JP, Pinczewski LA. Allograft donor characteristics significantly influence graft rupture after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a young active population. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (10) 2401-2407
  • 5 Su M, Jia X, Zhang Z. et al. Medium-term (Least 5 Years) comparative outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 4SHG, allograft, and LARS ligament. Clin J Sport Med 2021; 31 (02) e101-e110
  • 6 Goetz G, de Villiers C, Sadoghi P, Geiger-Gritsch S. Allograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR): a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term comparative effectiveness and safety. results of a health technology assessment. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2020; 2 (06) e873-e891
  • 7 Guo L, Yang L, Duan XJ. et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft: comparison of autograft, fresh-frozen allograft, and γ-irradiated allograft. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (02) 211-217
  • 8 Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Reinke EK. et al; MOON Knee Group. Change in anterior cruciate ligament graft choice and outcomes over time. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (11) 2007-2014
  • 9 Sim K, Rahardja R, Zhu M, Young SW. Optimal graft choice in athletic patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries: Review and clinical insights. Open Access J Sports Med 2022; 13: 55-67
  • 10 Clark JC, Rueff DE, Indelicato PA, Moser M. Primary ACL reconstruction using allograft tissue. Clin Sports Med 2009; 28 (02) 223-244 , viii
  • 11 Krych AJ, Jackson JD, Hoskin TL, Dahm DL. A meta-analysis of patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (03) 292-298
  • 12 Kraeutler MJ, Bravman JT, McCarty EC. Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus allograft in outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of 5182 patients. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (10) 2439-2448
  • 13 Kaeding CC, Aros B, Pedroza A. et al. Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort. Sports Health 2011; 3 (01) 73-81
  • 14 Barrett GR, Luber K, Replogle WH, Manley JL. Allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the young, active patient: Tegner activity level and failure rate. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (12) 1593-1601
  • 15 Borchers JR, Pedroza A, Kaeding C. Activity level and graft type as risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament graft failure: a case-control study. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (12) 2362-2367
  • 16 Singhal MC, Gardiner JR, Johnson DL. Failure of primary anterior cruciate ligament surgery using anterior tibialis allograft. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (05) 469-475
  • 17 Lin KM, Boyle C, Marom N, Marx RG. Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2020; 28 (02) 41-48
  • 18 Nagda SH, Altobelli GG, Bowdry KA, Brewster CE, Lombardo SJ. Cost analysis of outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: autograft versus allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (05) 1418-1422
  • 19 Park SS, Dwyer T, Congiusta F, Whelan DB, Theodoropoulos J. Analysis of irradiation on the clinical effectiveness of allogenic tissue when used for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (01) 226-235
  • 20 Tian S, Wang B, Liu L. et al. Irradiated hamstring tendon allograft versus autograft for anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Midterm clinical outcomes. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (10) 2579-2588
  • 21 Farago D, Kozma B, Kiss RM. Different sterilization and disinfection methods used for human tendons - a systematic review using mechanical properties to evaluate tendon allografts. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22 (01) 404
  • 22 Legnani C, Ventura A, Terzaghi C, Borgo E, Albisetti W. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with synthetic grafts. A review of literature. Int Orthop 2010; 34 (04) 465-471
  • 23 Satora W, Królikowska A, Czamara A, Reichert P. Synthetic grafts in the treatment of ruptured anterior cruciate ligament of the knee joint. Polim Med 2017; 47 (01) 55-59
  • 24 Fan D, Ma J, Zhang L. Patellar tendon versus artificial grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2021; 16 (01) 478
  • 25 Pan X, Wen H, Wang L, Ge T. Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2013; 23 (07) 819-823
  • 26 Ventura A, Terzaghi C, Legnani C, Borgo E, Albisetti W. Synthetic grafts for anterior cruciate ligament rupture: 19-year outcome study. Knee 2010; 17 (02) 108-113
  • 27 Macaulay AA, Perfetti DC, Levine WN. Anterior cruciate ligament graft choices. Sports Health 2012; 4 (01) 63-68
  • 28 Machotka Z, Scarborough I, Duncan W, Kumar S, Perraton L. Anterior cruciate ligament repair with LARS (ligament advanced reinforcement system): a systematic review. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol 2010; 2: 29
  • 29 Bianchi N, Sacchetti F, Bottai V. et al. LARS versus hamstring tendon autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a single-centre, single surgeon retrospective study with 8 years of follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019; 29 (02) 447-453
  • 30 Gao K, Chen S, Wang L. et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS artificial ligament: a multicenter study with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (04) 515-523
  • 31 Parchi PD, Ciapini G, Paglialunga C. et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS artificial ligament—clinical results after a long-term follow-up. Joints 2018; 6 (02) 75-79
  • 32 Alvarez-Pinzon AM, Barksdale L, Krill MK, Leo BM. Hybrid graft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a predictable graft for knee stabilization. Orthopedics 2015; 38 (06) e473-e476
  • 33 Kraeutler MJ, Kim SH, Brown CC. et al. Clinical outcomes following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft versus planned hybrid graft. J Knee Surg 2018; 31 (09) 827-833
  • 34 Vincelot-Chainard C, Buisson X, Taburet JF, Djian P, Robert H. ACL autograft reconstruction revisions with tendon allografts: Possibilities and outcomes. A one-year follow-up of 39 patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2022; 108 (03) 102832
  • 35 Hossain GMJ, Islam MS, Rahman Khan MM. et al. A prospective study of arthroscopic primary ACL reconstruction with ipsilateral peroneus longus tendon graft: Experience of 439 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023; 102 (09) e32943
  • 36 Rhatomy S, Wicaksono FH, Soekarno NR, Setyawan R, Primasara S, Budhiparama NC. Eversion and first ray plantarflexion muscle strength in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a peroneus longus tendon graft. Orthop J Sports Med 2019; 7 (09) 23 25967119872462
  • 37 Rhatomy S, Hartoko L, Setyawan R. et al. Single bundle ACL reconstruction with peroneus longus tendon graft: 2-years follow-up. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020; 11 (Suppl. 03) S332-S336
  • 38 Agarwal A, Singh S, Singh A, Tewari P. Comparison of functional outcomes of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using a peroneus longus graft as an alternative to the hamstring tendon graft. Cureus 2023; 15 (04) e37273
  • 39 Rhatomy S, Asikin AIZ, Wardani AE, Rukmoyo T, Lumban-Gaol I, Budhiparama NC. Peroneus longus autograft can be recommended as a superior graft to hamstring tendon in single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (11) 3552-3559
  • 40 Wiradiputra AE, , Febyan, Aryana GNW. Peroneus longus tendon graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A case report and review of literature. Int J Surg Case Rep 2021; 83: 106028
  • 41 Kerimoğlu S, Aynaci O, Saraçoğlu M, Aydin H, Turhan AU. [Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the peroneus longus tendon]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2008; 42 (01) 38-43
  • 42 He J, Tang Q, Ernst S. et al. Peroneus longus tendon autograft has functional outcomes comparable to hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (09) 2869-2879
  • 43 Kumar VK, Narayanan SK, Vishal RB. A study on peroneus longus autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int J Res Med Sci 2020; 8 (01) 183-188
  • 44 D'Ambrosi R, Meena A, Raj A. et al. Good results after treatment of RAMP lesions in association with ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (01) 358-371
  • 45 Kusumastutia AH, Rukmoyo T, Rhatomy S, Sakti YM. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with peroneus longus tendon autograft: functional outcome and donor site morbidity. Orthop J Sports Med 2020;8(5 Suppl 5):2325967120S00084
  • 46 Arora M, Shukla T. peroneus longus graft harvest: A technique note. Indian J Orthop 2023; 57 (04) 611-616
  • 47 Kumar PM, Shevte I, Phalak M, Nair A. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with semitendinosus graft versus peroneus longus tendon graft. Int J Res Orthop 2020; 6 (02) 386-392
  • 48 Angthong C, Chernchujit B, Apivatgaroon A, Chaijenkit K, Nualon P, Suchao-in K. The anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the peroneus longus tendon: A biomechanical and clinical evaluation of the donor ankle morbidity. J Med Assoc Thai 2015; 98 (06) 555-560
  • 49 Winkler PW, Vivacqua T, Thomassen S. et al. Quadriceps tendon autograft is becoming increasingly popular in revision ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022; 30 (01) 149-160
  • 50 Lubowitz JH. Editorial Commentary: Quadriceps tendon autograft use for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction predicted to increase. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (01) 76-77
  • 51 Meena A, D'Ambrosi R, Runer A. et al. Quadriceps tendon autograft with or without bone block have comparable clinical outcomes, complications and revision rate for ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (06) 2274-2288
  • 52 Kanakamedala AC, de Sa D, Obioha OA. et al. No difference between full thickness and partial thickness quadriceps tendon autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (01) 105-116
  • 53 Kunze KN, Moran J, Polce EM, Pareek A, Strickland SM, Williams III RJ. Lower donor site morbidity with hamstring and quadriceps tendon autograft compared with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. [published online ahead of print, 2023 Mar 31] Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (08) 3339-3352
  • 54 Runer A, Csapo R, Hepperger C, Herbort M, Hoser C, Fink C. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with quadriceps tendon autograft result in lower graft rupture rates but similar patient-reported outcomes as compared with hamstring tendon autograft: A comparison of 875 patients. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (09) 2195-2204
  • 55 Özbek EA, Dadoo S, Chang A. et al. Rates of septic arthritis after ACL reconstruction: A single-center analysis highlighting quadriceps tendon grafts. Am J Sports Med 2023; 51 (07) 1708-1714
  • 56 Shani RH, Umpierez E, Nasert M, Hiza EA, Xerogeanes J. Biomechanical comparison of quadriceps and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (01) 71-75
  • 57 Woo SL, Hollis JM, Adams DJ, Lyon RM, Takai S. Tensile properties of the human femur-anterior cruciate ligament-tibia complex. The effects of specimen age and orientation. Am J Sports Med 1991; 19 (03) 217-225
  • 58 Urchek R, Karas S. Biomechanical Comparison of Quadriceps and 6-Strand Hamstring Tendon Grafts in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med 2019; 7 (10) 23 25967119879113
  • 59 Strauss MJ, Miles JW, Kennedy ML. et al. Full thickness quadriceps tendon grafts with bone had similar material properties to bone-patellar tendon-bone and a four-strand semitendinosus grafts: a biomechanical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022; 30 (05) 1786-1794
  • 60 Castile RM, Jenkins MJ, Lake SP, Brophy RH. Microstructural and Mechanical Properties of Grafts Commonly Used for Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102 (22) 1948-1955
  • 61 Arnold MP, Calcei JG, Vogel N. et al; ACL Study Group. ACL Study Group survey reveals the evolution of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft choice over the past three decades. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (11) 3871-3876