Five-Strand Hamstring Autograft Versus Quadruple Hamstring Autograft With Graft Diameters 8.0 Millimeters or More in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

Abstract

To compare the outcomes of 2 groups of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction: the first with a quadrupled semitendinosus gracilis (ST-G) autograft larger than 8mm diameter and the second with a 5-strand ST-G autograft larger than 8mm due to an insufficient diameter graft harvesting. This was a retrospective study with 70 patients divided into 2 groups. Inclusion criteria included ACL ruptures of less than 3months, ST-G ACL reconstructions, and final (4-strand or 5-strand) graft size larger than 8mm. Exclusion criteria included multiligament knee injuries, meniscal or chondral pathology, ACL re-ruptures, inflammatory joint disease, or other procedures in the knee. Group A comprised 33 patients with a quadruple ST-G graft, and group B comprised 37 patients with an insufficient graft diameter (<8mm) in which a 5-strand graft was used. Mean age in group A was 29.7 (range 17-52) years and in group B was 30.6 (range 13-53) years (P= .78). Average follow-up in group A was 32.2 (range 24-48) months and in group B was 30.35 (range 24-48) months (P= .75). Average graft diameter in group A was 8.5mm (range 8-10) and in group B when the graft was measured as quadruple was 7.2mm (range 6.5-7.5) and 9.2mm (range 8-10) when it was converted to 5-strand (P= .00596). Group A had 3 (9%) re-ruptures, and group B had 2 (5.4%) (P= .55). The average postoperative Lysholm score in group A was 93.3 (range 71-100) and in group B was 97.1 (range 80-100) (P= .79). Mean postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee in group A was 91 (range 75.9-100) and in group B was 96.8 (range 82-100) (P= .18). In our study, the 5-strand hamstring autograft in ACL reconstruction was clinically comparable with the quadruple autograft larger than 8mm. The differences in re-rupture and clinical outcomes were not statistically significant between the 2 groups, suggesting that it is a valid option when we have a graft of insufficient diameter. Level III, retrospective comparative study.