Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Tibial or Hamstring Tendon Allografts

• Published in: Journal of orthopaedic surgery (Hong Kong) Vol. 22; no. 1; pp. 60 - 64
• Main Authors: Reverte-Vinaixa, Maria Mercedes, Minguell, Joan, Joshi, Nayana, Díaz-Ferreiro, Eugenio Wenceslao, Duarri, Gemma, Carrera, Lluís, Castellet, Enric
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.04.2014; Sage Publications Ltd; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Allografts; Anterior Cruciate Ligament - surgery; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction - methods; Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting - methods; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Joint Instability - diagnosis; Joint Instability - etiology; Joint Instability - surgery; Knee; Knee Injuries - complications; Knee Injuries - diagnosis; Knee Injuries - surgery; Ligaments; Male; Middle Aged; Patellar Ligament - transplantation; Reoperation; Skin & tissue grafts; Tendons; Time Factors; Young Adult; reoperation; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; knee joint
• ISSN: 1022-5536; 2309-4990
• DOI: 10.1177/230949901402200116

Purpose. To report outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using tibial or hamstring tendon allografts and to compare with another study using non-irradiated fresh-frozen bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts. Methods. Records of 12 men and 7 women aged 18 to 53 (mean, 33) years who underwent revision ACL reconstructions using tibial tendon (n=17) or hamstring tendon (n=2) allografts were retrospectively reviewed. At the time of primary ACL reconstruction, hamstring autografts (n=8) and bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts (n=11) were used. The mean time interval between surgeries was 93 (range, 11–225) months. The causes of failure were traumatic injury (n=7) and technical or biological reasons (n=12). The physical activity level was high in 2 patients, medium in 10, and low in 7. For clinical assessment, the Lysholm test, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scale, and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain were used. Patient satisfaction was also assessed. Results. Four of the patients had laxity and were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the outcome; the failure rate was 21%. The mean IKDC score was 63% (range, 25–100%), and the mean Lysholm score was 74% (range, 30–100%). Comparing our patients with those in another study using bone-patellar-bone allografts, there was no significant difference in terms of the VAS for pain, IKDC score, and Lysholm score. Comparing our patients with and without chondral and/or meniscal lesions, there was significant difference in terms of the Lysholm score only (86±11 vs. 57±28, p=0.043). Comparing patients who had used hamstring tendon autografts at the primary ACL reconstruction with those who had used bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts, there was significant difference in terms of the VAS for pain only (4.4±3.1 vs. 1.6±1.0, p=0.020). Conclusion. Revision ACL reconstruction using tibial or hamstring tendon allografts provided acceptable results, similar to those using the bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts.