Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Dec 16;30(6):e256048.
doi: 10.1590/1413-785220223006e256048. eCollection 2022.

GRAFTS FOR ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Tássio Navajas Andrez  1 , Júlia Bezerra Martins Chagas  1 , Lívia Baptista D'Oliveira  2
Affiliations
Review

GRAFTS FOR ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Tássio Navajas Andrez et al. Acta Ortop Bras. .

Abstract
in English, Portuguese

Objective: This study proposes to systematically review the literature and compare data on (1) function, (2) pain, (3) return to sport, and (4) complications after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with quadriceps tendon autograft (QT) and hamstring tendon autograft (HT).

Methods: In June 2021, a systematic review of the EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS databases was performed, based on PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy included the keywords: "Previous Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction," "ACL reconstruction," "quadriceps tendon autograft," "quadriceps graft," "Hamstring-Tendon Autografts." Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager software (RevMan Web).

Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding function according to Lysholm score (MD 3.01; CI-0.30, 6.33, p = 0.08), the presence of pain (RR 0.89; CI-0.57, 1.39, p = 0.60), and re-rupture (RR 0.60; IC-0.19, 1.88, p = 0.38).

Conclusion: QT and HT autografts show comparatively good results in ACL reconstruction without significant differences regarding function, pain, and rupture after surgical intervention. Level of Evidence II, Systematic Review of Level II Studies.

Objetivo: Revisar sistematicamente a literatura e comparar dados sobre função, dor, retorno ao esporte e complicação após a reconstrução de ligamento cruzado anterior (LCA) com autoenxerto do tendão do quadríceps (TQ) e autoenxerto do tendão dos músculos isquiotibiais (TF).

Métodos: Em junho de 2021, foi realizada revisão sistemática das bases de dados EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials e LILACS, baseada nas diretrizes do Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A estratégia de pesquisa incluiu as palavras-chave: “Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction”, “ACL reconstruction”, “quadriceps tendon autograft”, “quadriceps graft” e “Hamstring-Tendon Autografts”. As metanálises foram realizadas usando o software Review Manager (RevMan Web).

Resultados: Não houve diferenças significativas entre os dois grupos com relação à função pelo escore de Lysholm (MD 3,01; IC-0,30, 6,33, p = 0,08), presença de dor (RR 0,89; IC-0,57, 1,39, p = 0,60) e re-ruptura (RR 0,60; IC-0,19, 1,88, p = 0,38).

Conclusão: Os autoenxertos de TQ e TF apresentam resultados comparativamente bons na reconstrução do LCA sem diferenças significativas com relação à função, dor e ruptura após a intervenção cirúrgica. Nível de Evidência II, Revisão Sistemática de Estudos de Nível II.

Keywords: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Hamstring Tendons; Quadriceps Muscle; Tendons.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare no potential conflict of interest related to this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of the screening of the articles.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Funnel plot showing the mean difference in Lysholm scores between quadriceps tendon and hamstring tendon autografts.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Funnel plot showing the proportion of risk (A) and mean difference (B) of pain after surgical intervention for reconstruction with autografts of the quadriceps tendon and hamstring tendon.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Funnel plot showing the proportion of risk of ruptures after surgical intervention for reconstruction with autografts of the quadriceps tendon and hamstring tendon.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Assessment of the risk of bias from (A) randomized clinical trials and (B) non-randomized trials.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Monk AP, Davies LJ, Hopewell S, Harris K, Beard DJ, Price AJ. Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4(4):CD011166–CD011166. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prentice HA, Lind M, Mouton C, Persson A, Magnusson H, Gabr A. Patient demographic and surgical characteristics in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction a description of registries from six countries. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(11):716–722. - PubMed
    1. Strong A, Arumugam A, Tengman E, Röijezon U, Häger CK. Properties of knee joint position sense tests for anterior cruciate ligament injury a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(8):23259671211007878–23259671211007878. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mehran N, Damodar D, Shu Yang J. Quadriceps tendon autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(2):45–52. - PubMed
    1. Spindler KP, Wright RW. Clinical practice Anterior cruciate ligament tear. New Engl J Med. 2008;359(20):2135–2142. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources