The Physician and Sportsmedicine
Menubar Home Journal Personal Health Resource Center CME Advertiser Services About Us

ACL Reconstruction With Autografts

Weighing Performance Considerations and Postoperative Care

John A. Grant, PhD; Nicholas G. Mohtadi, MD, MSc

THE PHYSICIAN AND SPORTSMEDICINE - VOL 31 - NO. 4 - APRIL 2003

In Brief: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is the treatment of choice for patients who experience episodes of instability and a decreased quality of life after ACL rupture. The bone-patellar tendon-bone and hamstring autografts are the current standards for ACL reconstruction. Primary care physicians, especially sports medicine clinicians, are the first-line providers of nonoperative care for patients who have ACL injuries. Care providers need to know the biologic and biomechanic properties of these grafts, clinical indications for each graft, and rehabilitation considerations to appropriately counsel their patients.

Ligament reconstruction has become the treatment of choice for individuals who experience recurrent instability following rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). During the constant evolution in ACL reconstruction surgery, various structures used as ACL substitutes have been categorized as autograft (ie, the patient's own tissue),1,2 allograft (ie, tissue from another human donor),1 or synthetic tissue.3-5 Currently, autograft tissue is the most commonly used.1,6-9 The two tendons used most often for autografts are the central third of the patellar tendon from bone to patellar tendon to bone (BPTB) and the semitendinosus tendon (ST) alone or with gracilis (STG).1,7-9 The BPTB graft is harvested with a bone plug on each end (figure 1); the ST and STG are free grafts (tendon only).

Today, hamstring and patellar tendon grafts are used about equally often.10-12 As providers of nonsurgical care for ACL injury, healthcare practitioners should be prepared to counsel their patients regarding ACL reconstruction surgery. When deciding which of these grafts to use in a particular patient, many factors could affect the success of both the surgical procedure and the patient's successful return to activity. The physician and patient must be aware of these variables to make an informed decision about graft selection, and the physical therapist must be informed to guide optimal recovery. These factors include the biologic and biomechanic properties of each graft, the patient's relevant medical history and clinical findings, graft harvest site healing, and graft-specific rehabilitation considerations.

Graft Remodeling

All of the graft tissues currently used for ACL reconstruction are tendons. Tendons and ligaments appear similar under gross observation and simple histologic examination. However, closer examination reveals the hypercellularity of ligaments relative to tendons and differences in the proportion of total collagen, the amount of glycosaminoglycans, and the proportion of reducible collagen cross-links.13,14 Transformation of these characteristics constitutes the major component of the graft remodeling process.

Human studies of the remodeling process are limited to postmortem analysis and patients undergoing either second-look arthroscopies or total knee replacements.15-19 Human graft remodeling takes place over 3 years,18 substantially longer than the 1-year remodeling period that has been demonstrated in animals.13,20-23 In humans, rapid remodeling occurs in the first 10 months, followed by a 2-year maturing period. After this time, the graft is similar to the native ACL in cellularity, vascularity, and collagen organization but is not "normal."18

Human BPTB and ST grafts appear to go through a similar process of intra-articular remodeling16,18,19,24; therefore, when comparing the graft tissues, more interest has been paid to the remodeling that occurs within the osseous tunnels. Studies15,22,23,25 have reported evidence of both histologic and biomechanic incorporation of BPTB and ST grafts within the osseous tunnels of rabbits and sheep 2 to 3 months after implantation. In dogs, bone-to-bone incorporation (as in the BPTB graft) appears to occur about 3 weeks after implantation26,27 but is no different than tendon-to-bone incorporation (as in the ST graft) with respect to failure load 6 weeks after implantation.27

With BPTB grafts, the bone plug and a portion of the grafted tendon are fixed within the osseous tunnels. The limited amount of data available on human subjects undergoing revised ACL reconstruction has demonstrated results similar to animal studies. Bone-to-bone incorporation occurs quickly, with the bone-tendon junction requiring more than 1 year for complete incorporation.28 Given the current paucity of human data, no concise decisions regarding the true remodeling process can be made. Therefore, the available biologic information suggests that excessive graft strain should be avoided for at least 3 months following surgery to allow for successful graft incorporation.

Strength, Loading, and Stiffness

The full range of mechanical and structural properties of BPTB and ST grafts have been studied.6,29-31 Important features when comparing the two grafts are the strength of fixation within the osseous tunnels, the ultimate tensile load (maximum force in tension that the ligament can sustain before failure),32 graft stiffness (resistance to stretch), and response to cyclic loading (repeated bouts of stretching and relaxation). Fixation strength is the initial limiting factor, but as the graft tissue becomes solidly incorporated into the osseous tunnels, the ultimate tensile load, the stiffness of the intra-articular portion of the graft, and the graft's ability to adapt to cyclic loading become the deciding factors in graft success. No data are available to determine which of these three factors is the most important. The stiffness of the graft best correlates with the clinical grading of joint laxity on physical exam.33,34

In the often-quoted study by Noyes et al,6 the central third of the BPTB construct was found to fail at 170% of the native ACL's ultimate load, and the ST and gracilis alone failed at 70% and 49% respectively. Given that the graft tissue weakens after implantation and that the ultimate load declines with age,31,35,36 double-looped ST or gracilis tendons or double-looped gracilis tendons have been used to increase the ultimate load of the complete construct.

Comparing fixation methods, Steiner et al34 showed that the best STG construct was the double-looped STG graft with soft-tissue washer and suture fixation. The strongest BPTB graft was fixed with both interference screws and sutures tied over posts. The ultimate loads were 105% of the native ACL for the STG and 84% for the BPTB grafts. While the STG construct exhibited a higher ultimate load, the BPTB stiffness was much higher, at 76% of the native ACL versus 44% for the STG. The STG graft also allowed three times the elongation of the BPTB graft before failure. These results feed the debate about whether ultimate load or stiffness is the most important factor for graft selection.

Apart from the fixation and midsubstance strength of the grafts, the variable that is yet to be resolved is the cyclic loading that could cause long-term relaxation (elongation) of these grafts. The BPTB graft has been shown to elongate less than the STG graft.31,34 However, it is currently unknown whether or not this indicates long-term potential for decreased laxity. The fixation and ultimate load of double-looped STG grafts appear superior to that of BPTB grafts. However, the discrepancies in the reported stiffness and the unknown long-term relaxation effects preclude an obvious choice of graft based on biomechanic evaluation.

Choosing Hamstring or Patellar Tendon

The clinical variables of time since injury, amount of laxity, relevant medical history, and postoperative occupational and leisure activities must be evaluated when choosing which graft to use for ACL reconstruction.

Time since injury. Some suggest that the time between injury and surgery (ie, acute versus chronic reconstruction) may have an impact on graft choice. Depending on the author, an acute reconstruction has been classified as occurring from 3 weeks to 3 months following injury.12,37-43 However, current thinking about early reconstruction revolves around the resolution of joint edema and the restoration of full knee range of motion rather than a set time frame.39,40,43-46

Tolin and Friedman37 reported greater clinical success with acute (within 3 weeks of injury) as compared with chronic ST reconstructions. In acute reconstructions, they recommend that the hamstring graft is beneficial for patients who have mild-to-moderate laxity and that the BPTB graft is better for patients who have moderate-to-severe laxity. However, subsequent studies by O'Neill12 and Karlson et al38 demonstrated no differences in patient outcomes between acute and chronic ST reconstructions.

Laxity. Patients who have moderate-to-severe laxity preoperatively (eg, young females) may benefit from using stiffer BPTB grafts. Less stiff ST or STG grafts may be better for patients who have only mild preoperative laxity or a higher probability for postoperative stiffness (eg, older patients or those with osteoarthritis). Further research is needed to settle the debate concerning ultimate load versus stiffness outcomes for these patients.

History. Apart from fixation or incorporation and acute versus chronic situations, a hamstring graft may be preferable in a number of other situations. The disruption to the extensor mechanism and physical insult to the patellar tendon with the use of a BPTB graft can lead to patellar tendinitis.47,48 For patients who have a history of patellar tendinitis, use of a hamstring graft may avoid further insult to the patellar tendon. For patients who have a history of patellofemoral pain, the altered extensor mechanism after midtendon removal may increase stresses on the patellofemoral joint, potentially increasing symptoms.49,50

The use of the patellar tendon graft may also be questionable in patients who have a history of Osgood-Schlatter disease. The hypertrophic osteoblast activity in the tibial tubercle may cause extension of osseous tissue into the distal patellar tendon.51,52 The removal of the osseous tissue will leave a defect in the patellar tendon, thereby weakening the graft. McCarroll et al51 reported successful outcomes despite the presence of an ossicle; however, preoperative radiologic examination of the patellar tendon may help determine the size of the ossicle and the subsequent usefulness of the patellar tendon as a graft.

Activities. Patients who are required to kneel extensively as part of their occupation or other activities may have problems with a BPTB graft. This is mainly due to discomfort at the graft harvest site53 (figure 2), but it may also be partly caused by the superficial numbness over and lateral to the incision that results from cutting the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve during graft harvesting.54 Kartus et al54 have reported a two-incision graft harvest technique that alleviates the superficial numbness by avoiding the infrapatellar nerve, but use of this technique has not been reported outside this group in Sweden.

Finally, the graft choice will also influence the type and amount of strength deficit during the first year postoperatively. A BPTB graft will result in a greater quadriceps deficit, whereas a hamstring graft will result in a larger and more prolonged hamstring strength deficit.55-57

Graft Harvest Site Healing

The harvesting of autologous tissue for ACL reconstruction undoubtedly causes local morbidity and disrupts the tissue mechanics of the graft. Harvesting the BPTB graft leaves a 9- to 11-mm wide defect in the inferior patella, patellar tendon, and tibial tubercle. While filling the bony defects with bone meal reamed from the tunnels and closing the tendon defect with sutures might assist healing, no data show this is necessary.58-60 One concern is that closing the tendon defect may shorten the tendon, resulting in patella baja and potentially infrapatellar contracture syndrome.46,61,62 Further studies59,61,63 show that patellar shortening occurs in some patients, whether or not the defect is closed.

Compared with the patellar tendon defect, the healing response after the complete removal of a 20- to 30-cm section of semitendinosus tendon would theoretically be less successful; however, this is not the case. Firstly, the semitendinosus muscle belly does not appear to retract after the removal of its tendon.64,65 Secondly, recent magnetic resonance imaging and sonography studies have demonstrated that the tendon regenerates toward its distal insertion in 2 years.64-67 In most patients, the tendon continues to extend 10 to 30 mm above the normal pes anserine insertion and becomes more normal in appearance by 1 year after harvest.64-66 If the tendon regenerates to insert distal to the knee joint (either on the popliteal fascia or the pes anserine tendon), it can regain function as a knee flexor. Prospective radiologic and histologic studies are required to confirm these case series studies.

Rehabilitation Considerations

Postoperatively, rehabilitation considerations for patients who have a BPTB graft or an ST graft are mainly guided by issues concerning graft harvest site morbidity and graft fixation strength. As demonstrated by Steiner et al,34 graft fixation strength depends more on the method of tissue fixation than on tissue type.

BPTB grafts. The removal of the BPTB graft can cause many postoperative rehabilitation challenges. The joint edema and localized pain that develop in the extensor mechanism after surgery can have reflex inhibitory effects on the activation of the quadriceps mechanism.68 The insult to the extensor mechanism will limit the progression of quadriceps strengthening55,56; therefore, it is important to control swelling and pain in the early postoperative period to minimize the detrimental effects on strength during rehabilitation. Measures to control pain and swelling include frequent cryotherapy (20 minutes every 1 to 2 hours) immediately after surgery and active knee flexion and passive knee extension exercises starting postoperative day 1. Pain medication is given as needed the first week. As the rehabilitation progresses, care must be taken to closely monitor the patient for symptoms of anterior knee pain. Progressing too quickly through the rehabilitation process may irritate the weakened patellar tendon.

Additionally, postoperative swelling and discomfort may affect the patient's range of motion, which may lead to patellar entrapment and decreased scar mobility.46,62 Early control of pain and swelling are important for range-of-motion improvement. While these goals are important regardless of graft choice, early full passive knee extension, full weight bearing, and patellar mobilization with gliding movements are especially important with a BPTB graft to reduce the risk of patellar entrapment.62

ST grafts. For patients who have an ST graft, the rehabilitation considerations are less specific. The two important factors for patients and therapists to consider are the decreased graft stiffness (ie, increased likelihood of elongation when stressed) and the need for a slower progression of hamstring exercises during early rehabilitation.

To avoid excessive strain on the graft, avoiding open-kinetic-chain knee extension exercises through the 0° to 45° range is important. Active flexion and resisted flexion exercises should progress carefully to allow the remaining unattached semitendinosus tendon to heal without undue aggravation. Eccentric hamstring activity (as in the down phase of prone knee flexion-extension exercises) should be instituted with the support of the opposite leg until activity-induced discomfort has decreased and quality neuromuscular control has been established. Once the hamstrings have initially healed, however, emphasis must be placed on restoring hamstring strength.

Finally, attention should be paid to the amount of force generated in quadriceps-strengthening activities. These activities can progress faster in ST-graft patients because there is no insult to the extensor mechanism. The progression of these exercises should be monitored and balanced with the decreased ability of the hamstrings to counteract anterior tibial translation.

Clinical Outcomes

Knee range of motion, ligament laxity, and quadriceps and hamstring strength are widely used for postsurgical evaluation.12,38,49,69-74

Range of motion. In compliant patients who have uncomplicated reconstruction procedures, the accepted accelerated rehabilitation programs are successful in avoiding problems with range of motion.70,75,76 When range-of-motion restriction occurs, it appears to be associated with BPTB graft choice. In head-to-head studies,12,49 extension loss has been more prominent in BPTB grafts compared with ST grafts. Flexion loss is less of an issue but is still more common in patients who have BPTB grafts.12,49,69,74 Patellar crepitus and decreased patellar height may be associated with problems regaining full range of motion, but no clear difference between the grafts has been demonstrated.12,49,50,62

Ligament laxity. Measured with the KT1000 (MEDMetric Corp, San Diego), ligament laxity is the most consistently reported evaluation of ACL reconstruction success.12,38,49,69-74 While passive laxity measures have not correlated with the functional ability of a patient,77 laxity provides an important assessment of the graft's patency in the joint. Studies12,69-71,73 have demonstrated that 83% to 92% of BPTB-grafted patients and 82% to 88% of ST-grafted patients have acceptable joint laxity 2 years after surgery. Interestingly, in ST-grafted patients, Noojin et al71 demonstrated a long-term trend toward a higher percentage of men (88%) having acceptable laxity as compared with women (79%).

Strength deficits. Graft-specific strength deficits have been reported up to 1 year postoperatively.55,56 However, longer term studies have not shown any differences in quadriceps and hamstring strength deficits between BPTB and ST grafts.12,38,49 Further research is required to determine if the return of strength is related to the regeneration of the harvested tissue.58,64-66,78

Measures of Success

Subjective patient reports of surgery success are widely used but difficult to quantify and pool into a consensus. Global scores, such as the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire and Lysholm scales,79-84 that incorporate objective findings (range of motion, laxity, functional performance) and subjective patient reports of satisfaction have been published and are gaining popularity. The wide variety of both published and author-developed satisfaction surveys makes it difficult to compare outcomes across studies. Little difference was seen more that 2 years after surgery between patients who had reconstruction with BPTB or ST grafts in studies that used either IKDC or Lysholm scales. 12,38,71

Given the nonsignificant findings published in the literature, a 2001 meta-analysis11 comparing the two grafts demonstrated that the BPTB graft resulted in significantly more patients returning to their preinjury sport and having acceptable long-term ligament laxity. This meta-analysis also showed a trend for better outcomes with a BPTB graft in all the other clinical stability measures, and that the ST and BPTB grafts were equally successful in range of motion, postoperative complications, and graft failure. Since this publication, three more studies85-87 have been published on this topic. Two studies85,86 appear to strengthen the meta-analysis; the third87 demonstrates a preference for the ST graft.

Published studies show the BPTB graft to be superior in clinical stability, but strength outcomes have not been routinely evaluated in these studies. Quadriceps strength tends to lag in patients who have a BPTB graft, and hamstring strength trends to lag in patients who have an ST graft. The effects of these strength deficits, especially over the long term, need to be evaluated with functional tests (eg, stair hopping or one-legged hopping) to completely assess the most successful graft choice.

Weighing the Evidence

Considering the vast array of published research, it is astounding that so many questions remain to be answered regarding graft selection and long-term outcome after ACL reconstruction. Evidence demonstrates that both graft types mature in a similar fashion. The time to maturity is still unknown, as is the exact process of incorporation within the bony tunnels. Biomechanically, the method of fixation is more important in the early healing phase. It is currently unknown whether ultimate failure load, stiffness, or cyclic loading characteristics of the graft are more important for long-term success.

Due to the increased risk of patellar symptoms, ST grafts are likely a better choice for patients who have a history of anterior knee dysfunction (eg, patellofemoral pain, patellar tendinosis). These grafts may also be preferred by patients who kneel regularly. Rehabilitation considerations are specific to graft harvest site and fixation technique. Physical therapists should guide patients to progress within their healing abilities, keeping in mind the biologic progression of healing and the course of biomechanic weakness.

The BPTB graft has been shown to provide a more stable knee in the long term. The preferred graft for the return of functional ability and overall patient satisfaction is still up for discussion. To date, there is still no consensus on the comparative success of the two graft types in these outcomes, which may be the most important to the patient. In most cases, it boils down to the surgeon's preference and skill.

References

  1. Frank CB, Jackson DW: The science of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79(10):1556-1576
  2. Tovin BJ, Tovin TS, Tovin M: Surgical and biomechanical considerations in rehabilitation of patients with intra-articular ACL reconstructions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1992;15(6):317-322
  3. Grontvedt T, Engebretsen L, Benum P, et al: A prospective, randomized study of three operations for acute rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament: five-year follow-up of one hundred and thirty-one patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78(2):159-168
  4. Kumar K, Maffulli N: The ligament augmentation device: an historical perspective. Arthroscopy 1999;15(4):422-432
  5. Mirza F, Mai DD, Kirkley A, et al: Management of injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament: results of a survey of orthopaedic surgeons in Canada. Clin J Sport Med 2000;10(2):85-88
  6. Noyes FR, Butler DL, Grood ES, et al: Biomechanical analysis of human ligament grafts used in knee-ligament repairs and reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66(3):344-352
  7. Fu FH, Bennett CH, Ma CB, et al: Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part 2: operative procedures and clinical correlations. Am J Sports Med 2000;28(1):124-130
  8. Campbell JD: The evolution and current treatment trends with anterior cruciate, posterior cruciate, and medial collateral ligament injuries. Am J Knee Surg 1998;11(2):128-135
  9. Bartlett RJ, Clatworthy MG, Nguyen TN: Graft selection in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83(5):625-634
  10. Shaieb MD, Kan DM, Chang SK, et al: A prospective randomized comparison of patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2002;30(2):214-220
  11. Yunes M, Richmond JC, Engels EA, et al: Patellar versus hamstring tendons in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Arthroscopy 2001;17(3):248-257
  12. O'Neill DB: Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a prospective randomized analysis of three techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78(6):803-813
  13. Amiel D, Kleiner JB, Roux RD, et al: The phenomenon of 'ligamentization': anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar tendon. J Orthop Res 1986;4(2):162-172
  14. Amiel D, Frank C, Harwood F, et al: Tendons and ligaments: a morphological and biochemical comparison. J Orthop Res 1984;1(3):257-265
  15. Scranton PE Jr, Lanzer WL, Ferguson MS, et al: Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament neovascularization and ligamentization. Arthroscopy 1998;14(7):702-716
  16. Falconiero RP, DiStefano VJ, Cook TM: Revascularization and ligamentization of autogenous anterior cruciate ligament grafts in humans. Arthroscopy 1998;14(2):197-205
  17. Jung YB, Yum JK: Arthroscopic second look findings of an anterior cruciate ligament bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. Bull Hosp Jt Disease 1997;56(3):154-160
  18. Rougraff B, Shelbourne KD, Gerth PK, et al: Arthroscopic and histologic analysis of human patellar tendon autografts used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1993;21(2):277-284
  19. Lane JG, McFadden P, Bowden K, et al: The ligamentization process: a 4 year case study following ACL reconstruction with a semitendinosis graft. Arthroscopy 1993;9(2):149-153
  20. Goradia VK, Rochat MC, Kida M, et al: Natural history of a hamstring tendon autograft used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a sheep model. Am J Sports Med 2000;28(1):40-46
  21. Ballock RT, Woo SL, Lyon RM, et al: Use of patellar tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the rabbit: a long-term histologic and biomechanical study. J Orthop Res 1989;7(4):474-485
  22. Blickenstaff KR, Grana WA, Egle D: Analysis of a semitendinosus autograft in a rabbit model. Am J Sports Med 1997;25(4):554-559
  23. Panni AS, Milano G, Lucania L, et al: Graft healing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in rabbits. Clin Orthop 1997;343(Oct):203-212
  24. Yasuda K, Tomiyama Y, Ohkoshi Y, et al: Arthroscopic observations of autogeneic quadriceps and patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction of the knee. Clin Orthop 1989;246(Sep):217-224
  25. Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, et al: Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel: a biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75(12):1795-1803
  26. Papageorgiou CD, Ma CB, Abramowitch SD, et al: A multidisciplinary study of the healing of an intraarticular anterior cruciate ligament graft in a goat model. Am J Sports Med 2001;29(5):620-626
  27. Tomita F, Yasuda K, Mikami S, et al: Comparisons of intraosseous graft healing between the doubled flexor tendon graft and the bone-patellar tendon-bone graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2001;17(5):461-476
  28. Ishibashi Y, Toh S, Okamura Y, et al: Graft incorporation within the tibial bone tunnel after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. Am J Sports Med 2001;29(4):473-479
  29. Scheffler SU, Sudkamp NP, Gockenjan A, et al: Biomechanical comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon graft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: the impact of fixation level and fixation method under cyclic loading. Arthroscopy 2002;18(3):304-315
  30. Simonian PT, Levine RE, Wright TM, et al: Response of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction during cyclic tensile loading. Am J Knee Surg 2000;13(1):8-12
  31. Wilson TW, Zafuta MP, Zobitz M: A biomechanical analysis of matched bone-patellar tendon-bone and double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis tendon grafts. Am J Sports Med 1999;27(2):202-207
  32. Nigg BM, Herzog W (eds): Biomechanics of the Musculo-Skeletal System. Chichester, NY, J Wiley, 1994
  33. Haut RC: The mechanical and viscoelastic properties of the anterior cruciate ligament and of ACL fascicles, in Jackson DW, Arnoczky SP (eds): The Anterior Cruciate Ligament: Current and Future Concepts. New York, Raven Press, 1993, pp 63-73
  34. Steiner ME, Hecker AT, Brown CH Jr, et al: Anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation: comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts. Am J Sports Med 1994;22(2):240-6; discussion 246-247
  35. Fu FH, Jackson DW, Jamison J, et al: Allograft reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament, in Jackson DW, Arnoczky SP (eds): The Anterior Cruciate Ligament: Current and Future Concepts. New York, Raven Press, 1993, pp 325-338
  36. Woo SL, Blomstrom G: The tensile properties of the anterior cruciate ligament as a function of age, in Jackson DW, Arnoczky SP (eds): The Anterior Cruciate Ligament: Current and Future Concepts. New York, Raven Press, 1993, p 37
  37. Tolin BS, Friedman MJ: Autograft reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: semitendinosus reconstruction, in Jackson DW, Arnoczky SP (eds): The Anterior Cruciate Ligament: Current and Future Concepts. New York, Raven Press, 1993, pp 305-323
  38. Karlson JA, Steiner ME, Brown CH, et al: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using gracilis and semitendinosus tendons: comparison of through-the-condyle and over-the-top graft placements. Am J Sports Med 1994;22(5):659-666
  39. Harner CD, Irrgang JJ, Paul J, et al: Loss of motion after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1992;20(5):499-506
  40. Shelbourne KD, Wilckens JH, Mollabashy A, et al: Arthrofibrosis in acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the effect of timing of reconstruction and rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med 1991;19(4):332-336
  41. Larkin JJ, Barber-Westin SD: The effect of injury chronicity and progressive rehabilitation on single-incision arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1998;14(1):15-22
  42. Barrett GR, Rook RT, Nash CR, et al: The effect of Workers' Compensation on clinical outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted autogenous patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in an acute population. Arthroscopy 2001;17(2):132-137
  43. Mohtadi NG, Webster-Bogaert S, Fowler PJ: Limitation of motion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a case control study. Am J Sports Med 1991;19(6):620-624, discussion 624-625
  44. Millett PJ, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF: Motion loss after ligament injuries to the knee. Part 2: prevention and treatment. Am J Sports Med 2001;29(6):822-828
  45. Millett PJ, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF: Motion loss after ligament injuries to the knee. Part 1: causes. Am J Sports Med 2001;29(5):664-675
  46. Paulos LE, Rosenberg TD, Drawbert J, et al: Infrapatellar contracture syndome: an unrecognized cause of knee stiffness with patella entrapment and patella infera. Am J Sports Med 1987;15(4):331-341
  47. Brown CH Jr, Carson EW: Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Clin Sports Med 1999;18(1):109-171
  48. Graf B, Uhr F: Complications of intra-articular anterior cruciate reconstruction. Clin Sports Med 1988;7(4):835-848
  49. Aglietti P, Buzzi R, Zaccherotti G, et al: Patellar tendon versus doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1994;22(2):211-217; discussion 217-218
  50. Sachs RA, Daniel DM, Stone ML, et al: Patellofemoral problems after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1989;17(6):760-765
  51. McCarroll JR, Shelbourne KD, Patel DV: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in athletes with an ossicle associated with Osgood-Schlatter's disease. Arthroscopy 1996;12(5):556-560
  52. Cosgarea AJ, Weng MS, Andrews M: Osgood-Schlatter's disease complicating anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1993;9(6):700-703
  53. Breitfuss H, Frohlich R, Povacz P, et al: The tendon defect after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the midthird patellar tendon: a problem for the patellofemoral joint? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1996;3(4):194-198
  54. Kartus J, Ejerhed L, Sernert N, et al: Comparison of traditional and subcutaneous patellar tendon harvest: a prospective study of donor site-related problems after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using different graft harvesting techniques. Am J Sports Med 2000;28(3):328-335
  55. Hiemstra LA, Webber S, MacDonald PB, et al: Knee strength deficits after hamstring tendon and patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32(8):1472-1479
  56. Carter TR, Edinger S: Isokinetic evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: hamstring versus patellar tendon. Arthroscopy 1999;15(2):169-172
  57. Yasuda K, Tsujino J, Ohkoshi Y, et al: Graft site morbidity with autogenous semitendinosus and gracilis tendons. Am J Sports Med 1995;23(6):706-714
  58. Kartüs J, Movin T, Papadogiannakis N, et al: A radiographic and histologic evaluation of the patellar tendon after harvesting its central third. Am J Sports Med 2000;28(2):218-226
  59. Bernicker JP, Haddad JL, Lintner DM, et al: Patellar tendon defect during the first year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: appearance on serial magnetic resonance imaging. Arthroscopy 1998;14(8):804-809
  60. Brandsson S, Faxen E, Eriksson BI, et al: Closing patellar tendon defects after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: absence of any benefit. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1998;6(2):82-87
  61. Shaffer BS, Tibone JE: Patellar tendon length change after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the midthird patellar tendon. Am J Sports Med 1993;21(3):449-454
  62. Paulos L, Meislin R: Patellar entrapment following anterior cruciate ligament injury, in Jackson DW, Arnoczky SP (eds): The Anterior Cruciate Ligament: Current and Future Concepts. New York, Raven Press, 1993, pp 357-363
  63. Muellner T, Kaltenbrunner W, Nikolic A, et al: Shortening of the patellar tendon after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1998;14(6):592-596
  64. Rispoli DM, Sanders TG, Miller MD, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging at different time periods following hamstring harvest for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2001;17(1):2-8
  65. Eriksson K, Larsson H, Wredmark T, et al: Semitendinosus tendon regeneration after harvesting for ACL reconstruction: a prospective MRI study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1999;7(4):220-225
  66. Papandrea P, Vulpiani MC, Ferretti A, et al: Regeneration of the semitendinosus tendon harvested for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: evaluation using ultrasonography. Am J Sports Med 2000;28(4):556-561
  67. Cross MJ, Roger G, Kujawa P, et al: Regeneration of the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons following their transection for repair of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 1992;20(2):221-223
  68. Hopkins JT, Ingersoll CD, Krause BA, et al: Effect of knee joint effusion on quadriceps and soleus motoneuron pool excitability. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33(1):123-126
  69. Tibone JE, Antich TJ: A biomechanical analysis of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the patellar tendon: a two year followup. Am J Sports Med 1988;16(4):332-335
  70. Shelbourne KD, Klootwyk TE, Wilckens JH, et al: Ligament stability two to six years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar tendon graft and participation in accelerated rehabilitation program. Am J Sports Med 1995;23(5):575-579
  71. Noojin FK, Barrett GR, Hartzog CW, et al: Clinical comparison of intraarticular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autogenous semitendinosus and gracilis tendons in men versus women. Am J Sports Med 2000;28(6):783-789
  72. Miller MD, Sullivan RT: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in an 84-year-old man. Arthroscopy 2001;17(1):70-72
  73. Buss DD, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, et al: Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with use of autogenous patellar-ligament grafts: results after twenty-four to forty-two months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75(9):1346-1355
  74. Aglietti P, Buzzi R, Giron F, et al: Arthroscopic-assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the central third patellar tendon: a 5-8-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1997;5(3):138-144
  75. Shelbourne KD, Nitz P: Accelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1990;18(3):292-299
  76. Shelbourne KD, Gray T: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar tendon graft followed by accelerated rehabilitation: a two- to nine-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 1997;25(6):786-795
  77. Hrubesch R, Rangger C, Reichkendler M, et al: Comparison of score evaluations and instrumented measurement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2000;28(6):850-856
  78. Meisterling RC, Wadsworth T, Ardill R, et al: Morphologic changes in the human patellar tendon after bone-tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Orthop 1993;289(Apr):208-212
  79. International Knee Documentation Committee: Knee ligament injury and reconstruction evaluation, in Aichroth P, Cannon WD, Patel DV (eds): Knee Surgery: Current Practice. London, M Dunitz, 1992, pp 759-760
  80. Lysholm J, Gillquist J: Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 1982;10(3):150-154
  81. Tegner Y, Lysholm J: Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop 1985;198(Sep):43-49
  82. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, et al: Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med 2001;29(5):600-613
  83. Irrgang JJ, Ho H, Harner CD, et al: Use of the International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1998;6(2):107-114
  84. Sernert N, Kartus J, Kohler K, et al: Analysis of subjective, objective and functional examination tests after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a follow-up of 527 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1999;7(3):160-165
  85. Anderson AF, Snyder RB, Lipscomb AB Jr: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study of three surgical methods. Am J Sports Med 2001;29(3):272-279
  86. Barrett GR, Noojin FK, Hartzog CW, et al: Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in females: a comparison of hamstring versus patellar tendon autograft. Arthroscopy 2002;18(1):46-54
  87. Aune AK, Holm I, Risberg MA, et al: Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft compared with patellar tendon-bone autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized study with two-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2001;29(6):722-728

Dr Grant is an MD candidate, and Dr Mohtadi is a clinical associate professor and staff orthopedic surgeon at the University of Calgary Sport Medicine Centre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Address correspondence to John A. Grant, PhD, University of Calgary Sport Medicine Centre, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4; e-mail to grantja@ucalgary.ca.

Disclosure information: Drs Grant and Mohtadi disclose no significant relationship with any manufacturer of any commercial product mentioned in this article. No drug is mentioned in this article for an unlabeled use.

RETURN TO APRIL 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS

HOME  |   JOURNAL  |   PERSONAL HEALTH  |   RESOURCE CENTER  |   CME  |   ADVERTISER SERVICES  |   ABOUT US  |   SEARCH