Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(08): 828-833
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3400955
Original Article

Intraoperative Conversion to Five-Strand Hamstring Autograft Configuration Significantly Increases Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Diameter Independent of Patient Characteristics

Brian E. Walczak 
1   Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Scott J. Hetzel
2   Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Craig Chike Akoh
1   Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Geoffrey S. Baer
1   Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by NIH award from the UWMadison Institute of Aging T32AG000213-26 and the Institute of Clinical and Translational Research UL1TR000427 & TL1TR000429.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Intraoperative conversion of a four-strand hamstring autograft to a five-strand configuration during an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been reported. However, the expected change in graft size and the dependence on patient characteristics are currently not well described. The purpose of this study was to determine the effective change in hamstring graft diameter and reliance on patient characteristics when intraoperatively converting a four-strand hamstring autograft into a five-strand configuration during an ACL reconstruction. A prospective, paired cohort study design was used to measure individual hamstring autograft diameter intraoperatively using traditional four-strand configuration followed by a five-strand configuration. All hamstring tendons included were long enough to consider a five-strand configuration. Five-strand hamstring autograft increased graft diameter in all patients. Hamstring tendon graft diameter increased by an average of 0.99 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84–1.11) in the five-strand configuration compared with the traditional four-strand configuration (mean: 7.8 mm). There was no significant difference in the average increase in graft diameter between males (1.04 mm) and females (0.92 mm) (p = 0.323). Eighty-three percent (95% CI: 57.8–95.6) of average graft diameters ≤ 8 mm in the four-strand configuration achieved an average graft diameter of >8 mm in the five-strand configuration, and 70% (95% CI: 35.4– 91.9) of four-strand configuration average diameters < 8 mm achieved an average graft diameter > 8.0 mm in the five-strand configuration. Five-strand hamstring autograft reliably increased intraoperative hamstring tendon autograft diameter, with an average of 1 mm, compared with traditional four-strand configuration. This increase in diameter is independent of sex and remained significant when controlling for age, laterality, body mass index, and semitendinosus length.

Keywords

ACL reconstruction - hamstring autograft - graft diameter - ACL failure


Publication History

Received: 28 February 2019

Accepted: 14 October 2019

Article published online:
03 December 2019

© 2019. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Boniello MR, Schwingler PM, Bonner JM, Robinson SP, Cotter A, Bonner KF. Impact of hamstring graft diameter on tendon strength: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (06) 1084-1090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bottoni CR, Smith EL, Shaha J. et al. Autograft versus allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized clinical study with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (10) 2501-2509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Burrus MT, Werner BC, Crow AJ. et al. Increased failure rates after anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with soft-tissue autograft-allograft hybrid grafts. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (12) 2342-2351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Calvo R, Figueroa D, Figueroa F. et al. Five-strand hamstring autograft versus quadruple hamstring autograft with graft diameters 8.0 millimeters or more in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcomes with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (05) 1007-1013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Conte EJ, Hyatt AE, Gatt Jr CJ, Dhawan A. Hamstring autograft size can be predicted and is a potential risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (07) 882-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cvetanovich GL, Mascarenhas R, Saccomanno MF. et al. Hamstring autograft versus soft-tissue allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (12) 1616-1624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hamner DL, Brown Jr CH, Steiner ME, Hecker AT, Hayes WC. Hamstring tendon grafts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: biomechanical evaluation of the use of multiple strands and tensioning techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81 (04) 549-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Reinke EK, Huston LJ, Spindler KP. MOON Consortium. Risk factors and predictors of subsequent ACL injury in either knee after acl reconstruction: prospective analysis of 2488 primary ACL reconstructions from the MOON cohort. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (07) 1583-1590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Maeda A, Shino K, Horibe S, Nakata K, Buccafusca G. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with multistranded autogenous semitendinosus tendon. Am J Sports Med 1996; 24 (04) 504-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Magnussen RA, Lawrence JT, West RL, Toth AP, Taylor DC, Garrett WE. Graft size and patient age are predictors of early revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (04) 526-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mariscalco MW, Flanigan DC, Mitchell J. et al. The influence of hamstring autograft size on patient-reported outcomes and risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) cohort study. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (12) 1948-1953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Park SY, Oh H, Park S, Lee JH, Lee SH, Yoon KH. Factors predicting hamstring tendon autograft diameters and resulting failure rates after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (05) 1111-1118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fritsch B, Figueroa F, Semay B. Graft preparation technique to optimize hamstring graft diameter for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech 2017; 6 (06) e2169-e2175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jacobs CA, Burnham JM, Makhni E, Malempati CS, Swart E, Johnson DL. Allograft augmentation of hamstring autograft for younger patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (04) 892-899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Krishna L, Panjwani T, Mok YR, Lin Wong FK, Singh A, Toh SJ. Use of the 5-strand hamstring autograft technique in increasing graft size in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2018; 34 (09) 2633-2640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Krishna L, Tan XY, Wong FKL, Toh SJ. A 5-strand hamstring autograft achieves outcomes comparable to those of a 4-strand hamstring autograft with a graft diameter of 8 mm or more in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6 (03) 2325967118760815
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Lavery KP, Rasmussen JF, Dhawan A. Five-strand hamstring autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech 2014; 3 (04) e423-e426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lee RJ, Ganley TJ. The 5-strand hamstring graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech 2014; 3 (05) e627-e631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Leo BM, Krill M, Barksdale L, Alvarez-Pinzon AM. Failure rate and clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autograft hamstring versus a hybrid graft. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (11) 2357-2363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Perkins C, Busch MT, Christino MA, Willimon SC. Allograft augmentation of hamstring anterior cruciate ligament grafts is associated with increased graft failure. Orthop J Sports Med 2019; 47 (07) 1576-1582
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Snaebjörnsson T, Hamrin Senorski E, Ayeni OR. et al. Graft diameter as a predictor for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and KOOS and EQ-5D values: a cohort study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register based on 2240 patients. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (09) 2092-2097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Snow M, Cheung W, Mahmud J. et al. Mechanical assessment of two different methods of tripling hamstring tendons when using suspensory fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (02) 262-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Spragg L, Chen J, Mirzayan R, Love R, Maletis G. The effect of autologous hamstring graft diameter on the likelihood for revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (06) 1475-1481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tuman JM, Diduch DR, Rubino LJ, Baumfeld JA, Nguyen HS, Hart JM. Predictors for hamstring graft diameter in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (11) 1945-1949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vaillant ER, Parks BG, Camire LM, Hinton RY. Five-strand versus four-strand hamstring tendon graft technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (09) 916-919
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, R-project.orgA/ustria. Accessed November 15, 2019 at: https://www.R-project.org/
    Google Scholar