Contralateral hamstring autografts do not provide benefit compared to ipsilateral hamstring autografts in primary or revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

Abstract

AbstractPurposeTo evaluate the clinical outcomes of primary or revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) after contralateral hamstring autografts versus ipsilateral hamstring autograft harvest.MethodsThree databases (MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE) were searched from inception to April 27th, 2023 for studies investigating contralateral hamstring autografts in primary or revision ACLR. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R‐AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, strength measures, patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), and rates of positive Lachman test, positive pivot‐shift test and graft rupture were extracted. PROMs included Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores.ResultsNine studies comprising 371 patients were included in this review. In primary ACLR, there were no significant differences between contralateral and ipsilateral groups in isokinetic hamstring torque in the non‐ACLR limb or isokinetic quadriceps torque in both limbs when tested at 60, 90, 120 or 180 degrees/second. Isokinetic hamstring torque in the non‐ACLR limb was significantly weaker in the contralateral group at six months for primary ACLR; however, these deficits did not persist. There were no significant differences in postoperative median Tegner scores and Lysholm scores between contralateral and ipsilateral groups in primary ACLR. There were no significant differences in postoperative median Tegner, mean Lysholm and IKDC scores between groups in revision ACLR. There were no significant differences in positive Lachman, positive pivot‐shift and rupture rates in primary ACLR between groups. Rates of positive Lachman and pivot‐shift were slightly higher in the contralateral than ipsilateral group for revision ACLR.ConclusionContralateral hamstring autografts results in comparable muscle strength to ipsilateral hamstring autografts, with the exception of weaker hamstring strengths in the early postoperative period. Patient‐reported outcome measures were similar between the two groups across both primary and revision ACLR, with rates of instability and failure being similar between groups for primary ACLR. Contralateral hamstring grafts do not provide additional benefit when compared to ipsilateral options for either primary or revision ACLR, and should be used only in select circumstances including insufficient ipsilateral hamstring grafts or situations where quadriceps or patella autografts are not optimal.Level of evidenceLevel IV.