Comparison of Clinical Outcomes after Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction using a Bone-patellar Tendon-bone Autograft and that Using a Double-Bundle Hamstring Tendon Autograft.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft and that using a double-bundle hamstring tendon (HT) autograft. METHODS: Consecutive cases of revision ACLRs were reviewed. The Lysholm knee scale and Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were recorded at the final follow-up. The pivot shift test, Lachman test, and anterior knee laxity measurement using an arthrometer were evaluated before revision ACLR and at final follow-up. Contralateral knee laxity was also evaluated, and side-to-side differences noted. The Lysholm knee scale, KOOS, the pivot shift test, Lachman test, and anterior knee laxity were compared between HT versus BPTB autograft recipient groups using the Mann-Whitney test or the t-test. RESULTS: Forty-one patients who underwent revision ACLR and followed up for at least 2 years were included. The graft source was a BPTB autograft in 23 patients (BPTB group) and a double-bundle HT autograft in 18 patients (HT group). The mean postoperative follow-up period was 44 ± 28 months in the BPTB group and 36 ± 18 in the HT group (p = 0.38). The HT group had significantly higher KOOS in the pain subscale (less pain) than the BPTB group at the final follow-up (BPTB group 84.2 vs. HT group 94.4; p = 0.02). The BPTB group showed significantly smaller side-to-side difference in anterior knee laxity (superior stability) than the HT group (0.3 vs. 2.6 mm; p < 0.01). The percentage of patients with residual anterior knee laxity in the BPTB group was significantly lower than that in the HT group (9.5% vs. 46.7%; odds ratio, 8.3; p = 0.02). STUDY DESIGN: This was a level 3 retrospective study. CONCLUSION: Revision ACLR with a BPTB autograft was associated with superior results regarding restoration of knee joint stability as compared with that with a double-bundle HT autograft, whereas double-bundle HT autograft was superior to BPTB autograft in terms of patient-reported outcomes of pain. The rest of the patient-reported outcomes were equal between the two groups.