Failure Rates of 5-Strand and 6-Strand vs Quadrupled Hamstring Autograft ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of 413 Patients With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft has gained popularity. However, an unpredictably small graft diameter has been a drawback of this technique. Smaller graft diameter has been associated with increased risk of revision, and increasing the number of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine 2020-08, Vol.8 (8), p.2325967120946326-2325967120946326
Hauptverfasser: Attia, Ahmed Khalil, Nasef, Hazem, ElSweify, Kareem Hussein, Adam, Mohammed A., AbuShaaban, Faris, Arun, Kariyal
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2325967120946326
container_issue 8
container_start_page 2325967120946326
container_title Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
container_volume 8
creator Attia, Ahmed Khalil
Nasef, Hazem
ElSweify, Kareem Hussein
Adam, Mohammed A.
AbuShaaban, Faris
Arun, Kariyal
description Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft has gained popularity. However, an unpredictably small graft diameter has been a drawback of this technique. Smaller graft diameter has been associated with increased risk of revision, and increasing the number of strands has been reported as a successful technique to increase the graft diameter. Purpose: To compare failure rates of 5-strand (5HS) and 6-strand (6HS) hamstring autograft compared with conventional 4-strand (4HS) hamstring autograft. We describe the technique in detail, supplemented by photographs and illustrations, to provide a reproducible technique to avoid the variable and often insufficient 4HS graft diameter reported in the literature. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of all primary hamstring autograft ACLRs performed at our institution with a minimum 2-year follow-up and 8.0-mm graft diameter. A total of 413 consecutive knees met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study population was divided into 5HS and 6HS groups as well as a 4HS control group. The primary outcome was failure of ACLR, defined as persistent or recurrent instability and/or revision ACLR. Results: The analysis included 224, 156, and 33 knees in the 5HS, 6HS, and 4HS groups, respectively. The overall ACLR failure rate in this study was 11 cases (8%): 5 cases for 5HS, 3 cases for 6HS, and 3 cases for 4HS. No statistically significant differences were found among groups (P = .06). The mean graft diameter was 9 mm, and the mean follow-up was 44.27 months. Conclusion: The 5HS and 6HS constructs have similar failure rates to the conventional 4HS construct of 8.0-mm diameter and are therefore safe and reliable to increase the diameter of relatively smaller hamstring autografts. We strongly recommend using this technique when the length of the tendons permits to avoid failures reportedly associated with inadequate graft size.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/2325967120946326
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7453462</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_2325967120946326</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2442601427</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-efb709cbd0a0a1ebfb8a21aff5597d2e5d6b606d9d74876cc3e988f4a81a9ab63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1Uk1r3DAQNaWlCWnuPRVBL724lWRZsnooLEu3KWxpmg9KT2ZsyRsF23L0sSX_Jj81MpukSaACIenNmzdv0GTZW4I_EiLEJ1rQUnJBKJaMF5S_yPZnKJ-xl4_ue9mh95c4raokshCvs72CSlqUWOxnNyswfXQanUDQHtkOlflpcDAqNG9-_9h69CuCcnHqtUJHMPjgzLhBixjsxkEX0GK5Rie6tWOKxDYYO35GC7S0wwQOgtlqdBqiup5LMFKg44TpMXj024QLBOiHGc0QB0TzPxocWtm-t3_zOL3JXnXQe314dx5k56uvZ8ujfP3z2_flYp23jNOQ664RWLaNwoCB6KZrKqAEuq4spVBUl4o3HHMllWCV4G1baFlVHYOKgISGFwfZl53uFJtBqzZ5c9DXkzMDuOvagqmfRkZzUW_sthasLJKFJPDhTsDZq6h9qAfjW933MGobfU0ZoxwTRkWivn9GvbTRjam9mUUow5LMjvCO1TrrvdPdgxmC63kC6ucTkFLePW7iIeH-vxMh3xE8bPS_qv8VvAUTFrlh</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2441240916</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Failure Rates of 5-Strand and 6-Strand vs Quadrupled Hamstring Autograft ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of 413 Patients With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Attia, Ahmed Khalil ; Nasef, Hazem ; ElSweify, Kareem Hussein ; Adam, Mohammed A. ; AbuShaaban, Faris ; Arun, Kariyal</creator><creatorcontrib>Attia, Ahmed Khalil ; Nasef, Hazem ; ElSweify, Kareem Hussein ; Adam, Mohammed A. ; AbuShaaban, Faris ; Arun, Kariyal</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft has gained popularity. However, an unpredictably small graft diameter has been a drawback of this technique. Smaller graft diameter has been associated with increased risk of revision, and increasing the number of strands has been reported as a successful technique to increase the graft diameter. Purpose: To compare failure rates of 5-strand (5HS) and 6-strand (6HS) hamstring autograft compared with conventional 4-strand (4HS) hamstring autograft. We describe the technique in detail, supplemented by photographs and illustrations, to provide a reproducible technique to avoid the variable and often insufficient 4HS graft diameter reported in the literature. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of all primary hamstring autograft ACLRs performed at our institution with a minimum 2-year follow-up and 8.0-mm graft diameter. A total of 413 consecutive knees met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study population was divided into 5HS and 6HS groups as well as a 4HS control group. The primary outcome was failure of ACLR, defined as persistent or recurrent instability and/or revision ACLR. Results: The analysis included 224, 156, and 33 knees in the 5HS, 6HS, and 4HS groups, respectively. The overall ACLR failure rate in this study was 11 cases (8%): 5 cases for 5HS, 3 cases for 6HS, and 3 cases for 4HS. No statistically significant differences were found among groups (P = .06). The mean graft diameter was 9 mm, and the mean follow-up was 44.27 months. Conclusion: The 5HS and 6HS constructs have similar failure rates to the conventional 4HS construct of 8.0-mm diameter and are therefore safe and reliable to increase the diameter of relatively smaller hamstring autografts. We strongly recommend using this technique when the length of the tendons permits to avoid failures reportedly associated with inadequate graft size.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2325-9671</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2325-9671</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/2325967120946326</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32923507</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Failure ; Joint and ligament injuries ; Knee ; Orthopedics ; Reconstructive surgery ; Sports medicine ; Surgical outcomes</subject><ispartof>Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020-08, Vol.8 (8), p.2325967120946326-2325967120946326</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial – No Derivatives License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020 2020 SAGE Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-efb709cbd0a0a1ebfb8a21aff5597d2e5d6b606d9d74876cc3e988f4a81a9ab63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-efb709cbd0a0a1ebfb8a21aff5597d2e5d6b606d9d74876cc3e988f4a81a9ab63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7453462/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7453462/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,21966,27853,27924,27925,44945,45333,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32923507$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Attia, Ahmed Khalil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nasef, Hazem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ElSweify, Kareem Hussein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adam, Mohammed A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AbuShaaban, Faris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arun, Kariyal</creatorcontrib><title>Failure Rates of 5-Strand and 6-Strand vs Quadrupled Hamstring Autograft ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of 413 Patients With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up</title><title>Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine</title><addtitle>Orthop J Sports Med</addtitle><description>Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft has gained popularity. However, an unpredictably small graft diameter has been a drawback of this technique. Smaller graft diameter has been associated with increased risk of revision, and increasing the number of strands has been reported as a successful technique to increase the graft diameter. Purpose: To compare failure rates of 5-strand (5HS) and 6-strand (6HS) hamstring autograft compared with conventional 4-strand (4HS) hamstring autograft. We describe the technique in detail, supplemented by photographs and illustrations, to provide a reproducible technique to avoid the variable and often insufficient 4HS graft diameter reported in the literature. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of all primary hamstring autograft ACLRs performed at our institution with a minimum 2-year follow-up and 8.0-mm graft diameter. A total of 413 consecutive knees met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study population was divided into 5HS and 6HS groups as well as a 4HS control group. The primary outcome was failure of ACLR, defined as persistent or recurrent instability and/or revision ACLR. Results: The analysis included 224, 156, and 33 knees in the 5HS, 6HS, and 4HS groups, respectively. The overall ACLR failure rate in this study was 11 cases (8%): 5 cases for 5HS, 3 cases for 6HS, and 3 cases for 4HS. No statistically significant differences were found among groups (P = .06). The mean graft diameter was 9 mm, and the mean follow-up was 44.27 months. Conclusion: The 5HS and 6HS constructs have similar failure rates to the conventional 4HS construct of 8.0-mm diameter and are therefore safe and reliable to increase the diameter of relatively smaller hamstring autografts. We strongly recommend using this technique when the length of the tendons permits to avoid failures reportedly associated with inadequate graft size.</description><subject>Failure</subject><subject>Joint and ligament injuries</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Reconstructive surgery</subject><subject>Sports medicine</subject><subject>Surgical outcomes</subject><issn>2325-9671</issn><issn>2325-9671</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1Uk1r3DAQNaWlCWnuPRVBL724lWRZsnooLEu3KWxpmg9KT2ZsyRsF23L0sSX_Jj81MpukSaACIenNmzdv0GTZW4I_EiLEJ1rQUnJBKJaMF5S_yPZnKJ-xl4_ue9mh95c4raokshCvs72CSlqUWOxnNyswfXQanUDQHtkOlflpcDAqNG9-_9h69CuCcnHqtUJHMPjgzLhBixjsxkEX0GK5Rie6tWOKxDYYO35GC7S0wwQOgtlqdBqiup5LMFKg44TpMXj024QLBOiHGc0QB0TzPxocWtm-t3_zOL3JXnXQe314dx5k56uvZ8ujfP3z2_flYp23jNOQ664RWLaNwoCB6KZrKqAEuq4spVBUl4o3HHMllWCV4G1baFlVHYOKgISGFwfZl53uFJtBqzZ5c9DXkzMDuOvagqmfRkZzUW_sthasLJKFJPDhTsDZq6h9qAfjW933MGobfU0ZoxwTRkWivn9GvbTRjam9mUUow5LMjvCO1TrrvdPdgxmC63kC6ucTkFLePW7iIeH-vxMh3xE8bPS_qv8VvAUTFrlh</recordid><startdate>20200801</startdate><enddate>20200801</enddate><creator>Attia, Ahmed Khalil</creator><creator>Nasef, Hazem</creator><creator>ElSweify, Kareem Hussein</creator><creator>Adam, Mohammed A.</creator><creator>AbuShaaban, Faris</creator><creator>Arun, Kariyal</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200801</creationdate><title>Failure Rates of 5-Strand and 6-Strand vs Quadrupled Hamstring Autograft ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of 413 Patients With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up</title><author>Attia, Ahmed Khalil ; Nasef, Hazem ; ElSweify, Kareem Hussein ; Adam, Mohammed A. ; AbuShaaban, Faris ; Arun, Kariyal</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-efb709cbd0a0a1ebfb8a21aff5597d2e5d6b606d9d74876cc3e988f4a81a9ab63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Failure</topic><topic>Joint and ligament injuries</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Reconstructive surgery</topic><topic>Sports medicine</topic><topic>Surgical outcomes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Attia, Ahmed Khalil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nasef, Hazem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ElSweify, Kareem Hussein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adam, Mohammed A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AbuShaaban, Faris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arun, Kariyal</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Attia, Ahmed Khalil</au><au>Nasef, Hazem</au><au>ElSweify, Kareem Hussein</au><au>Adam, Mohammed A.</au><au>AbuShaaban, Faris</au><au>Arun, Kariyal</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Failure Rates of 5-Strand and 6-Strand vs Quadrupled Hamstring Autograft ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of 413 Patients With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up</atitle><jtitle>Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Orthop J Sports Med</addtitle><date>2020-08-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2325967120946326</spage><epage>2325967120946326</epage><pages>2325967120946326-2325967120946326</pages><issn>2325-9671</issn><eissn>2325-9671</eissn><abstract>Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft has gained popularity. However, an unpredictably small graft diameter has been a drawback of this technique. Smaller graft diameter has been associated with increased risk of revision, and increasing the number of strands has been reported as a successful technique to increase the graft diameter. Purpose: To compare failure rates of 5-strand (5HS) and 6-strand (6HS) hamstring autograft compared with conventional 4-strand (4HS) hamstring autograft. We describe the technique in detail, supplemented by photographs and illustrations, to provide a reproducible technique to avoid the variable and often insufficient 4HS graft diameter reported in the literature. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of all primary hamstring autograft ACLRs performed at our institution with a minimum 2-year follow-up and 8.0-mm graft diameter. A total of 413 consecutive knees met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study population was divided into 5HS and 6HS groups as well as a 4HS control group. The primary outcome was failure of ACLR, defined as persistent or recurrent instability and/or revision ACLR. Results: The analysis included 224, 156, and 33 knees in the 5HS, 6HS, and 4HS groups, respectively. The overall ACLR failure rate in this study was 11 cases (8%): 5 cases for 5HS, 3 cases for 6HS, and 3 cases for 4HS. No statistically significant differences were found among groups (P = .06). The mean graft diameter was 9 mm, and the mean follow-up was 44.27 months. Conclusion: The 5HS and 6HS constructs have similar failure rates to the conventional 4HS construct of 8.0-mm diameter and are therefore safe and reliable to increase the diameter of relatively smaller hamstring autografts. We strongly recommend using this technique when the length of the tendons permits to avoid failures reportedly associated with inadequate graft size.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>32923507</pmid><doi>10.1177/2325967120946326</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2325-9671
ispartof Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020-08, Vol.8 (8), p.2325967120946326-2325967120946326
issn 2325-9671
2325-9671
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7453462
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Failure
Joint and ligament injuries
Knee
Orthopedics
Reconstructive surgery
Sports medicine
Surgical outcomes
title Failure Rates of 5-Strand and 6-Strand vs Quadrupled Hamstring Autograft ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of 413 Patients With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T19%3A13%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Failure%20Rates%20of%205-Strand%20and%206-Strand%20vs%20Quadrupled%20Hamstring%20Autograft%20ACL%20Reconstruction:%20A%20Comparative%20Study%20of%20413%20Patients%20With%20a%20Minimum%202-Year%20Follow-up&rft.jtitle=Orthopaedic%20journal%20of%20sports%20medicine&rft.au=Attia,%20Ahmed%20Khalil&rft.date=2020-08-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2325967120946326&rft.epage=2325967120946326&rft.pages=2325967120946326-2325967120946326&rft.issn=2325-9671&rft.eissn=2325-9671&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/2325967120946326&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2442601427%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2441240916&rft_id=info:pmid/32923507&rft_sage_id=10.1177_2325967120946326&rfr_iscdi=true