Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and arthroscopic outcomes of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstrings augmented with ligament augmentation and reconstruction systems compared with four-strand hamstring tendon grafts alone

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the clinical, radiological, and second-look arthroscopic outcomes in patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using a four-strand hamstring tendon graft (hamstring group) either without augmentation or with ligament augmentation and reconstruction system (LARS) augmentation (LARS augmentation group).

Methods

From January 2018 to December 2019, patients who underwent ACL reconstruction were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were undertaken pre-operatively and at three, six, 12, and 24 months post-operatively. Arthroscopic evaluation was performed focusing on the morphology of the graft based on graft tension, graft tear, and synovial coverage.

Results

A total of 178 consecutive patients received single-bundle ACL reconstruction, 89 patients in each group, and 20 patients were lost to follow-up in the first two years. At the three month follow-up, the LARS augmentation group had significantly higher Lysholm scores, IKDC scores, and KOS-ADLS scores than the hamstring group (P < 0.001). At the three, six and 12-month follow-ups, there were significantly higher Tegner scores and ACL-RSI scores in the LARS augmentation group than in the hamstring group (P < 0.05). At the three and six month follow-ups, the LARS augmentation group had significantly higher rates of return to sports and return to sports at their preinjury level (P < 0.05). There were no between-group differences in other outcomes, including arthroscopic outcomes, graft signal intensity, post-operative complications or rerupture rates.

Conclusions

Autologous hamstring augmented with the LARS augmentation technique provides good and realistic clinical and functional results during the early post-operative period with high levels of satisfaction of patients, including participation in sports and physical activity, and high rates of return to sports at the preinjury level, without any apparent complications compared with hamstring ACL reconstruction alone. No increases in complication, reinjury rates, or increased lateral laxity were observed at the 12-month or 24-month follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Mascarenhas R, Saltzman BM, Sayegh ET et al (2015) Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy 31(3):561–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Marx RG, Jones EC, Angel M, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF (2003) Beliefs and attitudes of members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons regarding the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Arthroscopy 19(7):762–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Webster KE, Feller JA (2019) Expectations for return to preinjury sport before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 47(3):578–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Webster KE (2014) Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors. Br J Sports Med 48(21):1543–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiggins AJ, Grandhi RK, Schneider DK, Stanfield D, Webster KE, Myer GD (2016) Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 44(7):1861–1876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Samitier G, Marcano AI, Alentorn-Geli E, Cugat R, Farmer KW, Moser MW (2015) Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arch bone joint surg 3(4):220

    Google Scholar 

  7. Duchman KR, Lynch TS, Spindler KP (2017) Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament surgery: who gets what and why? Clin Sports Med 36(1):25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Widner M, Dunleavy M, Lynch S (2019) Outcomes following ACL reconstruction based on graft type: are all grafts equivalent? Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 12(4):460–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ (1996) Anterior cruciate ligament injury rehabilitation in athletes. Sports Med 22(1):54–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Falconiero RP, DiStefano VJ, Cook TM (1998) Revascularization and ligamentization of autogenous anterior cruciate ligament grafts in humans. Arthroscopy 14(2):197–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. West RV, Harner CD (2005) Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 13(3):197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Amiel D, Kleiner JB, Roux RD, Harwood FL, Akeson WH (1986) The phenomenon of “ligamentization”: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar tendon. J Orthop Res 4(2):162–172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Janssen R, Scheffler SU (2014) Intra-articular remodelling of hamstring tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(9):2102–2108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pinczewski LA, Lyman J, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Roe J, Linklater J (2007) A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft: a controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med 35(4):564–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rambaud AJ, Ardern CL, Thoreux P, Regnaux J-P, Edouard P (2018) Criteria for return to running after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a scoping review. Br J Sports Med 52(22):1437–1444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen T, Zhang P, Chen J, Hua Y, Chen S (2017) Long-term outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using either synthetics with remnant preservation or hamstring autografts: a 10-year longitudinal study. Am J Sports Med 45(12):2739–2750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. DePhillipo NN, Cinque ME, Chahla J, Geeslin AG, LaPrade RF (2017) Anterolateral ligament reconstruction techniques, biomechanics, and clinical outcomes: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 33(8):1575–1583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Falconer TM, Tusak L, Breidahl WH, Annear PT (2015) The LARS augmented 4-TUNNEL hamstring “hybrid” ACLR graft construction allows accelerated rehabilitation without knee laxity—case series of 111 patients after 2 years. J Musculoskelet Res 14(4):1550020. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218957715500207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamido F, Al Harran H, Al Misfer A et al (2015) Augmented short undersized hamstring tendon graft with LARS® artificial ligament versus four-strand hamstring tendon in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: preliminary results. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101(5):535–538

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hamido F, Misfer A, Al Harran H et al (2011) The use of the LARS artificial ligament to augment a short or undersized ACL hamstrings tendon graft. Knee 18(6):373–378

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Saper MG (2018) Quadriceps tendon autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with independent suture tape reinforcement. Arthrosc Tech 7(11):e1221–e1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith PA, Bley JA (2016) Allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction utilizing internal brace augmentation. Arthrosc Tech 5(5):e1143–e1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Newman SD, Atkinson HD, Willis-Owen CA (2013) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the ligament augmentation and reconstruction system: a systematic review. Int Orthop 37(2):321–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Batty LM, Norsworthy CJ, Lash NJ, Wasiak J, Richmond AK, Feller JA (2015) Synthetic devices for reconstructive surgery of the cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 31(5):957–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Maletius W, Gillquist J (1997) Long-term results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a Dacron prosthesis: the frequency of osteoarthritis after seven to eleven years. Am J Sports Med 25(3):288–293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Aujla RS, Ebert JR, Annear PT (2021) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstrings augmented with the ligament augmentation and reconstruction system versus hamstrings alone: a comparative cohort study. Orthop J Sports Med 9(10):23259671211046630

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kinugasa K, Mae T, Matsumoto N, Nakagawa S, Yoneda M, Shino K (2011) Effect of patient age on morphology of anterior cruciate ligament grafts at second-look arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 27(1):38–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahn JH, Wang JH, Lee YS, Kim JG, Kang JH, Koh KH (2011) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using remnant preservation and a femoral tensioning technique: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging results. Arthroscopy 27(8):1079–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Toritsuka Y, Shino K, Horibe S et al (2004) Second-look arthroscopy of anterior cruciate ligament grafts with multistranded hamstring tendons. Arthroscopy 20(3):287–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ahn JH, Kim JD, Kang HW (2015) Anatomic placement of the femoral tunnels in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction correlates with improved graft maturation and clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy 31(11):2152–2161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Noh JH, Yang BG, Roh YH, Lee JS (2011) Synovialization on second-look arthroscopy after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using Achilles allograft in active young men. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(11):1843–1850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Choi S, Kim M-K, Kwon YS, Kang H (2017) Clinical and arthroscopic outcome of single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of remnant preservation versus conventional technique. Knee 24(5):1025–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ahn JH, Lee SH, Choi SH, Lim TK (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring tendon autografts: comparison of remnant bundle preservation and standard technique. Am J Sports Med 38(9):1768–1777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Vogl TJ, Schmitt J, Lubrich J et al (2001) Reconstructed anterior cruciate ligaments using patellar tendon ligament grafts: diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced MRI in a 2-year follow-up regimen. Eur Radiol 11(8):1450–1456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-64

  36. Angthong C, Chernchujit B, Apivatgaroon A, Chaijenkit K, Nualon P, Suchao-in K (2015) The anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the peroneus longus tendon: a biomechanical and clinical evaluation of the donor ankle morbidity. J Med Assoc Thai 98(6):555–560

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ebert JR, Annear PT (2019) ACL reconstruction using autologous hamstrings augmented with the ligament augmentation and reconstruction system provides good clinical scores, high levels of satisfaction and return to sport, and a low retear rate at 2 years. Orthop J Sports Med 7(10):2325967119879079

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lee B-I, Kim CH, Jang BW, Hong YC, Kwon S-W (2020) Preservation of the tibial remnant in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may improve postoperative proprioceptive function. Orthopedics 43(4):e231–e236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Raoul T, Klouche S, Guerrier B et al (2019) Are athletes able to resume sport at six-month mean follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Prospective functional and psychological assessment from the French Anterior Cruciate Ligament Study (FAST) cohort. Knee 26(1):155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McPherson AL, Feller JA, Hewett TE, Webster KE (2019) Psychological readiness to return to sport is associated with second anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 47(4):857–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Webster KE, Nagelli CV, Hewett TE, Feller JA (2018) Factors associated with psychological readiness to return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med 46(7):1545–1550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Grindem H, Snyder-Mackler L, Moksnes H, Engebretsen L, Risberg MA (2016) Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Br J Sports Med 50(13):804–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Barber-Westin S, Noyes FR (2020) One in 5 athletes sustain reinjury upon return to high-risk sports after ACL reconstruction: a systematic review in 1239 athletes younger than 20 years. Sports Health 12(6):587–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kawashima T, Omi Y, Kuriyama S, Hoshida T, Sugimoto D (2021) Effect of graft rupture prevention training on young athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an 8-year prospective intervention study. Orthop J Sports Med 9(1):2325967120973593

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wang HD, Wang FS, Gao SJ, Zhang YZ (2018) Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all the participants who volunteered to take part in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sports Medicine, Fujian Province, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University NoSiming DistrictPostal Code, 55 Zhenhai Street, Xiamen City, 361026, China

    Hamood H. G. Zaid, Nan Chenwei, Hua Xu & Guo Yang

  2. College of Integrative Medicine, Gulou District, Fujian Province, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 282, Wusi Road, Fuzhou City, 350122, China

    Hamood H. G. Zaid & Xihai Li

Authors
  1. Hamood H. G. Zaid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nan Chenwei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hua Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guo Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xihai Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HHGZ, the first author of this article, drafted the manuscript and data analysis, carried out the concepts, design, definition of intellectual content, data acquisition, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. HHGZ and CWN Contributed equally to this manuscript. XH provided assistance for data acquisition. GY and CWN completed all operations. GY and XLH reviewed the manuscript. All the authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Guo Yang or Xihai Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics committee approval

This study was approved by the ethics committee of our hospital (IRB No. 2018–034).

Informed consent.

Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Level of evidence: II, prospective study.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaid, H.H.G., Chenwei, N., Xu, H. et al. Clinical and arthroscopic outcomes of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstrings augmented with ligament augmentation and reconstruction systems compared with four-strand hamstring tendon grafts alone. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 47, 151–164 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05588-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05588-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation