Affiliation:
1. Michael DeGroote School of Medicine McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada
2. Faculty of Health Sciences McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada
3. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada
Abstract
ABSTRACTPurposeTo evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (r‐ACLR) using hamstring tendon (HT) autografts with those using either quadriceps tendon (QT) or bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autografts or allografts.MethodsThree databases were searched on 8 August 2023. The authors adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) and Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R‐AMSTAR) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, surgical details, patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), rates of instability, failure and return to sport (RTS) were extracted.ResultsEleven studies comprising 859 patients were included in this review. Five studies compared HT and QT autografts. One study each reported greater IKDC scores (p = 0.04) and Tegner scores (p = 0.04) in the QT group, while one study each reported higher anterior translation (p = 0.04), rates of positive pivot shift (p = 0.03) and rates of failure (p = 0.03) in the HT group. Six studies compared HT and BPTB autografts with one study each reporting greater Lysholm scores (p = 0.02) and less side‐to‐side anterior laxity (p < 0.01) in the BPTB group. Two studies compared HT autografts with allografts with only one study reporting a faster time to RTS in the HT group than the allograft group (p < 0.001). All other comparisons were not significant.ConclusionsHT autografts result in either similar or inferior outcomes in r‐ACLR when compared to QT or BPTB autograft options. Allografts resulted in similar outcomes to HT autografts apart from greater time to RTS for r‐ACLR.Level of EvidenceLevel III.