Posteromedial versus Anteromedial Hamstring Tendon Harvest for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparison of Accidental Gracilis Harvests, Outcomes, and Operative Times

Arthroscopic Anterior Cuciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Neither a Tourniquet nor Drainage: A Perioperative Case Series Report

INTRODUCTION

Many orthopedic surgeons recommend ischemic tourniquets during arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair to reduce blood loss and improve visibility. However, their use remains controversial due to potential complications. Similarly, the practice of postoperative drainage is debated. While its proponents argue it reduces limb swelling, DVT, adhesions, and stiffness, others contend that it may increase infection risk or harm the ACL graft and joint surfaces.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 456 patients underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between September 2015 and December 2024, without the use of a tourniquet or drainage. The patients were 334 men with a mean age of 34.7 years and 122 women with a mean age of 32.3 years. In 389 cases the graft type was a hamstring autograft, in 55 cases a patellar tendon autograft (BPTB) was used, and in 12 cases a quadriceps tendon autograft was used.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 61 min (range 52-79). No cases experienced visual impairment or required ischemia to enhance visibility. Bleeding sites were successfully cauterized during arthroscopy. Postoperative complications included knee hematoma in three patients (0.7%), resolved after drainage on day one, and two infections (0.4%), treated successfully with arthroscopic drainage and implant removal. No further complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

Although many orthopedic surgeons prefer arthroscopic ACL repair with a tourniquet for better visibility and reduced intraoperative blood loss, this approach carries risks such as nerve palsy, joint swelling, stiffness, muscle weakness, and vascular changes. Not using a tourniquet can help to identify bleeding sites and allows for a more thorough procedure. The literature suggests that avoiding a tourniquet also reduces postoperative pain and accelerates recovery. The mean operative time for ACL reconstruction was consistent with the literature, indicating that avoiding a tourniquet did not cause delays. Additionally, the absence of postoperative drainage did not lead to complications, with most patients showing no issues like bleeding, hematoma, ischemia, or poor wound healing.

Comparison of Medial Hamstring Length Between Harvesting Methods Using Anterior and Posterior Approaches

Background

Medial hamstring tendons harvesting can be performed through either an anterior or a posterior approach. It has been suggested that using a posterior approach may result in a longer length of harvestable tendon compared with an anterior approach.

Hypothesis

There would be no difference in the length of the harvestable tendon between the anterior and posterior approaches.

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted at the primary institution using prospectively collected data from skeletally mature Chinese patients who underwent medial hamstring tendons harvesting between January 2008 and December 2021. Patients were excluded if they had experienced graft harvesting complication or if only 1 medial hamstring tendon was harvested. One-to-one exact matching was performed between the 2 approaches based on body height and sex. The outcome assessed was the length of the harvested tendon.

Results

A total of 536 patients underwent medial hamstring tendons harvesting using an anterior approach, while 58 underwent it using a posterior approach, all of whom met the inclusion criteria. A group of 54 matched pairs were identified. The length of the harvested semitendinosus tendon was 263 ± 29 mm in the anterior approach and 256 ± 28 mm in the posterior approach (P = .09; Student t test). The mean difference in the length of the harvested semitendinosus tendon between the 2 approaches was 7 mm. The length of the gracilis tendon was 226 ± 29 mm and 223 ± 29 mm in the anterior approach and the posterior approach, respectively (P = .30; Student t test).

Conclusion

In a retrospective 1:1 case-control study with exact matching of body height and sex, it was found that there was no difference in the length of the semitendinosus tendon and the gracilis tendon harvested using a posterior approach compared with an anterior approach. The mean difference between the 2 approaches was 7 mm for the semitendinosus tendon and 3 mm for the gracilis tendon, respectively.

The Posteromedial Approach for Harvesting Hamstring Autografts Results in Fewer Incidents of Saphenous Nerve Injury Compared to the Conventional Anteromedial Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The hamstring autograft can be harvested using various skin incisions, such as vertical, transverse, and oblique incisions, and from different localizations, including anteromedial and posteromedial harvest sites. The aim of this study was to compare studies on the anteromedial and posteromedial approaches for hamstring autograft harvest in terms of clinical outcomes, saphenous nerve injury, infection, operative time, graft length, incision length, range of motion, and patient satisfaction.

Methods

Following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus, focusing on studies comparing anteromedial and posterior approaches for hamstring harvest. This study was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023450249). Methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) quantified dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

Results

Five articles, involving 405 knees, underwent analysis. Four studies were level 3 evidence, while 1 was level 1. The anteromedial hamstring harvest showed higher rates of saphenous nerve injury (OR, 9.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.19-43.65; p = 0.003) and longer operative times, with an MD of about 13 minutes (MD, 13.33; 95% CI, 0.68-25.97; p = 0.04), compared to the posteromedial approach. The anteromedial method yielded a longer semitendinosus graft, with an MD of about 17 mm (MD, 17.57; 95% CI, 7.17-27.98; p = 0.0009). However, no significant differences existed in range of motion, flexion contracture, unintentional graft harvest, infection rates, and patient-reported outcomes. Notably, the posteromedial group reported higher cosmetic satisfaction, with 92% being very satisfied, compared to the anteromedial group with 80% (p = 0.005). However, overall satisfaction levels were similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.35), with a very satisfied rate of 72% for the anteromedial group and 78% for the posteromedial group.

Conclusions

The anteromedial hamstring harvest showed greater saphenous nerve injury and longer operative times compared to the posteromedial approach, along with a longer graft. However, no significant differences were observed in the range of motion, flexion contracture, graft harvest, infection, or patient outcomes.

Multiligament Knee Reconstruction With Suture Tape Augmentation: Patient-Reported Outcomes at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Multiligament knee injury (MLKI) is a severe subclass of orthopedic injury and can result in significant functional impairment. Novel MLKI graft constructs such as suture augmentation aim to enhance graft strength and optimize knee stability. The purpose of this study was to present patient-reported outcome measurements of a cohort at a minimum follow-up of 2 years after multiligament knee reconstruction (MLKR) with suture augmentation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who underwent MLKR with suture augmentation. Demographic and injury-specific variables were gathered preoperatively and postoperatively. Patients were contacted at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively to collect Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Multiligament Quality of Life, and Lysholm knee scores.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients underwent MLKR with suture augmentation, with 15 being female (55.6%) and 12 being male (44.4%). The mean pain score was 49.93±9.96, the mean physical function score was 49.56±10.94, and the mean mobility score was 47.56±8.58. The mean physical impairment score was 33.96±23.69, the mean emotional impairment score was 36.55±26.60, the mean activity limitation score was 28.00±25.61, and the mean societal involvement score was 30.09±27.45. The mean Lysholm knee score for the cohort was 67.93±22.36.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent MLKR with suture augmentation had satisfactory scores across all patient-reported outcome measurements. On the basis of these criteria, the average patient achieved an acceptable clinical outcome, demonstrating that MLKR with suture augmentation is a safe and efficacious surgical technique for the treatment of MLKI. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(4):238-243.].

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Leads to Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Introduction Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears occur frequently in young athletes, and ligament repair and reconstruction are surgical treatments. Although there are suggested benefits for both approaches, there is a lack of direct comparisons between ACL repair and reconstruction.This study aims to compare the mid-term functional outcomes and quality of life measures between patients that have undergone ACL repair versus reconstruction. Methods A retrospective review was conducted for demographic and operative report data of patients who underwent an ACL repair or reconstruction between 2012 and 2018. Patients were contacted over the phone and underwent a Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey evaluating pain interference, mobility, and function. Patients were excluded from the study if there was an incomplete operative note, missing contact information, or failure to answer phone calls. Results A total of 74 eligible patients were included, with n = 54 in the ACL reconstruction group (73.0%) and n = 20 in the ACL repair group (27.0%). Reconstruction patients had a PROMIS (median (IQR)) physical function score of 22.50 (16.00-59.00), as compared to repair patients' physical function score of 60.00 (21.50-60.00). There was a significant difference favoring repair (p = 0.040). In addition, ACL reconstruction patients had a significantly higher rate of additional procedures, with 63.0% of reconstruction patients receiving an additional operation as compared to 30.0% of repair patients (p = 0.017). The surgery type did not show a significant effect on physical function scores, while additional procedures remained significant in the linear regression analysis. Conclusion Although ACL repair is associated with improved physical function scores as compared to reconstruction in the univariate analysis, surgery type did not show significance when controlling for other variables. Further studies are necessary to compare patients with similar injuries to account for differences in additional procedures, but the results remain promising in assisting with patient-driven treatment decisions.

Hamstring autograft utilization in reconstructing anterior cruciate ligament: Review of harvesting techniques, graft preparation, and different fixation methods

Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common orthopedic injury. Various graft options are available for the reconstruction of ruptured ACL. Using the hamstring muscle as an autograft was first described in 1934, and it remains a commonly harvested graft for ACL reconstruction. Hamstring autografts can be harvested using the traditional anteromedial approach or the newer posteromedial technique. An isolated semitendinosus tendon can be used or combined with the gracilis tendon. There are numerous methods for graft fixation, such as intra-tunnel or extra-tunnel fixation. This comprehensive review discusses the different hamstring muscle harvesting techniques and graft preparation options and fixation methods. It provides a comprehensive overview for choosing the optimal surgical technique when treating patients.

Premature hamstring graft amputation during harvesting in ACL reconstruction

Introduction

There are some possible complications during or after hamstring graft harvesting such as premature graft amputation, medial collateral ligament injury and infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve injury. Premature graft amputation can occur by inadequate removal of the accessory branches of the hamstring tendons, poor surgical technique and/or too sharp tendon stripper. In this study, we report a case of premature hamstring graft amputation due to degeneration caused by osteochondroma at the posteromedial aspect of the proximal tibia.

Case presentation

We reported the case of a 28-year-old Thai male who had an ACL injury was scheduled for ACL reconstruction. In this case, we had planned to use a hamstring graft for double-bundle ACL reconstruction. During the gracilis tendon harvesting, the graft was prematurely amputated by a tendon stripper at the level of the osteochondroma. The premature graft amputation was sent for pathology, which showed degenerated tissue.

Conclusion

In cases of osteochondroma at the posteromedial aspect of the proximal tibia, it is a chance of premature hamstring graft amputation. We suggest removing the osteochondroma before harvesting the tendon grafts to avoid the risk of premature graft transection.

•

The incidence of premature graft amputation is rare.

•

In this patient, premature graft amputation caused by osteochondroma at the posteromedial aspect of the proximal tibia.

•

In cases of osteochondroma at the medial proximal tibia, we suggest removing the osteochondroma before harvesting the tendon grafts.

Is It Better to Routinely Use Tourniquet for Knee Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The use of tourniquet in knee arthroscopic surgery is a routine technique and provides convenience for the operation. However, the adverse effects caused by tourniquet during the operation are noticed by more and more researchers. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of tourniquet use in knee arthroscopy. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we searched databases like PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception of the database up to November 20, 2018, using the keywords " anterior cruciate ligament," "meniscectomy," "arthrocopy," etc. to identify randomized clinical trials. A total of 16 randomized controlled trials involving 1,132 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 582 patients in tourniquet group and 550 patients in nontourniquet group. Compared with tourniquet group, nontourniquet group had less postoperative blood loss and less consumption of analgesic. There was no significant difference between the two groups in intraoperatively arthroscopic visualization, postoperative pain score, postoperative quadriceps muscle strength, and operation time. Our study suggested that compared with tourniquet use, arthroscopic surgery of the knee without tourniquet did not appear to have any disadvantage, and the current evidence was more inclined not to use tourniquet as a routine procedure during the knee arthroscopic surgery.