UCSF

Purpose

To compare hamstring autograft primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques including adult-type/anatomic, transphyseal, and transphyseal techniques by (1) ACL graft tear, (2) contralateral ACL tear, and (3) all-cause ipsilateral reoperation.

Methods

A retrospective, single-surgeon review was performed including all ACLR with hamstring autograft in pediatric and adolescent patients from 2011 to 2019. Minimum 2-year follow-up was required for patients unless a tear or reoperation was sustained before that time point. Data collected included demographics and baseline surgical variables, type of reconstruction, sporting activity, and deviations from rehabilitation protocols. Comparisons were made among hamstring autograft reconstruction groups (adult-type/anatomic, transphyseal, and partial transphyseal) for primary outcomes of graft tear, contralateral ACL tears, and all-cause ipsilateral knee reoperations, including hardware removal. Secondary surgeries performed with different surgeons were noted.

Results

In total, 214 patients of age 15.2 ± 2.0 years with 4.1 ± 1.7-year follow-up were included. Overall graft tear rate was 11.7% (11.0% adult-type vs 19.1% transphyseal vs 5.6% partial transphyseal; P = .18). On univariate analyses, all-cause ipsilateral reoperation did not differ by technique (21.3% vs 31.0% vs 33.3%; P = .20), and neither did contralateral ACL tear (8.1% vs 9.5% vs 0%; P = .17). 21.7% of ipsilateral revision ACLRs (all adult-type) and 16.7% of patients with any reoperations had subsequent procedures performed with a different surgeon.

Conclusions

The graft tear rates in primary hamstring autograft ACLRs in the adolescent population did not significantly differ by technique (11.0% vs 19.1% vs 5.6% in adult-type, transphyseal, and partial transphyseal reconstructions, respectively). Furthermore, contralateral ACL tears (8.1% vs 9.5% vs 0%) and all-cause (including > 1/4 hardware removal) ipsilateral knee reoperations (21.3% vs 31.0% vs 33.3%) did not statistically differ. Higher powered studies may detect statistical significance in the observed differences in this study.

Level of evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.