Estimation Failure Risk by 0.5-mm Differences in Autologous Hamstring Graft Diameter in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Because grafts are made in 0.5-mm increments clinically for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, it is important to clarify how the failure rate decreases as the diameter increases. Moreover, it is important to know whether even a slight increase in the graft diameter decreases the risk of failure. Hypothesis: The risk of failure decreases significantly with each 0.5-mm increase in hamstring graft diameter. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis have estimated the diameter-specific failure risk for each 0.5-mm increase in ACL reconstruction using autologous hamstring grafts. We searched for studies describing the relationship between graft diameter and failure rate published before December 1, 2021, in leading databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We included studies using single-bundle autologous hamstring grafts to investigate the relationship between failure rate and graft diameter of 0.5-mm intervals with >1-year follow-up. Then, we calculated the failure risk caused by 0.5-mm differences in autologous hamstring graft diameter. Assuming Poisson distribution for the statistical model, we employed an extended linear mixed-effects model in the meta-analyses. Results: Five studies containing 19,333 cases were eligible. The meta-analysis revealed that the estimated value of the coefficient of diameter in the Poisson model was −0.2357 with a 95% CI of −0.2743 to −0.1971 (P < .0001). With every 1.0-mm increase in diameter, the failure rate decreased by 0.79 (0.76-0.82) times. In contrast, the failure rate increased by 1.27 (1.22-1.32) times for each 1.0-mm decrease in diameter. The failure rate significantly decreased with each 0.5-mm increase in graft diameter in the range of <7.0 to >9.0 mm from 3.63% to 1.79%. Conclusion: The risk of failure decreased correspondingly with each 0.5-mm increase in graft diameter in the range of <7.0 to >9.0 mm. Failure is multifactorial; however, increasing the graft diameter as much as possible to match each patient’s anatomic space without overstuffing is an effective precaution that surgeons can take to reduce failures.