Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes between All‐inside and Standard Technique in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with 6‐strand Hamstring Tendon Autograft

Abstract

ObjectiveAll‐inside and standard techniques with 4‐strand hamstrings graft have been widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the graft diameter of less than 8 mm will significantly increase the rate of surgical failure, and the 6‐strand graft can solve this problem. The purpose of this study is to compare all‐inside ACL reconstruction using suspensory cortical button fixation on both tibia and femur with standard ACL reconstruction using suspensory femoral fixation and a bioabsorbable tibial interference screw with a 6‐strand hamstring tendon autograft in postoperative clinical outcomes.MethodsFrom January 2020 to December 2020, 48 patients performed ACL reconstruction were divided into the all‐side group and the standard group according to the different surgical techniques. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subjective function scores was used to assess clinical outcomes at least 24 months following ACL reconstruction. MRI was used to measure the value of bone tunnel widening in articular and middle portions. Subjective function scores included the Lysholm knee score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) for pain and function, and KT‐1000. The t‐test was used assuming the distribution of the patients which follows the normal distribution and we used non‐parametric tests if these two conditions were not satisfied.ResultsAt the final follow‐up, there were 22 patients in the all‐inside group and 24 patients in the standard group. No significant differences were found with respect to femoral tunnel widening and subjective function scores. However, a significant increase in tibial tunnel widening was found in the middle portion of the standard group (2.25 ± 0.74) compared to the all‐inside group (0.76 ± 0.24) (p < 0.01) and also in the articular portion of the standard group (2.07 ± 0.77) compared to the all‐inside group (1.52 ± 0.54) (p = 0.02). In addition, the value of the KT‐1000 was 1.81 ± 0.45 for the all‐inside group and 2.12 ± 0.44 in the standard group (p = 0.016).ConclusionThe objective stability of the knee was relatively better in the all‐inside group than in the standard group. And tunnel widening after ACL reconstruction was significantly greater in the standard technique when compared to the all‐inside technique on the tibia side.