Skip to main content
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics
Download PDF

Current trends in graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction – part I: anatomy, biomechanics, graft incorporation and fixation

Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics volume 10, Article number: 37 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is critical, as it remains one of the most easily adjustable factors affecting graft rupture and reoperation rates. Commonly used autografts, including hamstring tendon, quadriceps tendon and bone-patellar-tendon-bone, are reported to be biomechanically equivalent or superior compared to the native ACL. Despite this, such grafts are unable to perfectly replicate the complex anatomical and histological characteristics of the native ACL. While there remains inconclusive evidence as to the superiority of one autograft in terms of graft incorporation and maturity, allografts appear to demonstrate slower incorporation and maturity compared to autografts. Graft fixation also affects graft properties and subsequent outcomes, with each technique having unique advantages and disadvantages that should be carefully considered during graft selection.

Introduction

The primary goal of ACL-R is restoring antero-posterior and rotatory knee stability and function as closely as possible to the native joint. Despite advances in surgical techniques and rehabilitation, postoperative complications including graft rupture remain significant, yielding severe socioeconomic consequences and detrimental patient experience.

Revision surgery rates average between 2 and 10% [32, 39, 90, 91, 98, 128] but may be as high as 42% in high-level pivoting athletes [27, 29, 62, 96, 97]. Several well-known intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors, including patient age, activity level, and alignment influence postoperative outcomes and failure rates [54, 81, 96, 128]. Graft choice has been highlighted as an adjustable extrinsic factor with impact on failure of ACL-R [54, 96, 98].

Graft choices in ACL-R are broadly divided into autograft and allograft tissue. Hamstring tendon autograft (HT) is the most commonly used autograft among ACL surgeons worldwide, followed by bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) and quadriceps tendon autograft (QT) [7]. When available, allograft presents an attractive alternative to autograft due to shorter surgical time and avoidance of donor site morbidity. Numerous allograft sources are available, including all-soft tissue as well as tendon-bone options.

The following review aims to highlight current concepts of graft choice in ACL-R and provide the most up-to-date evidence regarding the graft selection process for primary ACL-R. The first of two parts, this paper will discuss the anatomical, biomechanical, and histological properties as well as differences in graft incorporation and fixation techniques of the three most widely used autografts and allografts. The second part will focus on clinical outcomes, failure rates and complications associated with each graft option.

Graft choice rationale

Individualized graft choice is advised in modern ACL-R; no single graft is appropriate for all patients. When choosing the optimal graft for each patient, the surgeon must consider multiple patient-specific, physician-specific, and graft-specific factors. Such considerations include tissue availability, prior or concomitant injury, patient comorbidities, and surgeon experience. The optimal graft will offer an expeditious harvest with low morbidity, rapid graft integration, and mechanical and structural properties similar to the native ACL. Despite this, each graft option has unique anatomical and biomechanical characteristics with resultant advantages and disadvantages.

Anatomy and microstructural properties

Successful ACL-R necessitates reconstruction of native anatomy. A profound comprehension of ligamentous anatomy is the first step in the graft selection process.

Native ACL

ACL-R is predominantly performed as a single-bundle procedure. Quantitative measurements of the native ACL are patient-dependent with length, cross-sectional area (CSA), and volume ranging from 26 to 38 mm [2, 25, 36, 42, 118], 30 to 53 mm2 [17, 25, 36, 109, 110, 119, 124] and 854 to 1858 mm3 [66, 122, 123], respectively. Descriptions of the femoral origin and tibial insertion sites vary in CSA and morphology The femoral CSA ranges between 60 and 130 mm2, whereas a larger CSA (from 100 to 160 mm2) has been described for the tibial site [36, 55,56,57,58, 67, 68, 85, 107, 108, 114, 117].

Histologically, the native ACL demonstrates a high percentage of fibroblasts, blood vessels, and elastic fibrils, with a relatively low ratio of collagen fibrils to interstitium. These characteristics facilitate ACL function during daily activity, as they allow for regeneration and enable the ligament to withstand multiaxial stresses and fluctuating tensile strains [46].

Autograft

There are several different autograft options available for ACL-R, the most prevalent of which include BPTB, QT and HS. In general, each graft should be at least 7 cm long and have a midsubstance CSA similar to the native ACL.

The BPTB autograft represented historically the “gold standard” in ACL-R. The graft consists of an approximately 10 mm wide tendon strip obtained from the central third of the patellar tendon and includes two bone blocks, one each from the tibial tuberosity and the patella. Compared to HT it is more “flat” and has less collagen fibers compared to QT [45].

Unlike the BPTB autograft, multiple configurations are described for the QT autograft. It can be harvested with or without a bone block and as an approximately 10 mm wide full-thickness graft, or a 12 × 5 mm partial-thickness graft [34]. Histologically, the QT provides approximately 20% more collagen fibrils and a higher density of fibroblasts than a BPTB autograft of the same size, with comparable thickness of collagen fibrils and density of blood vessels [45]. Although some have cited concerns regarding mismatch between patient height and QT graft size, the literature demonstrates that QT autograft of sufficient length and thickness can be obtained in patients with small stature [40].

For HT autograft, harvested from the semitendinosus and/or gracilis tendon, there is wide variability in graft configurations ranging from one to eight strands, with quadrupled hamstring being the most common [75]. While BPTB and QT autograft are generally consistent in terms of length and thickness, hamstring tendons are correlated with patients’ anthropometrics and sports activity level and are therefore patient-dependent [89, 121]. Graft size does not correlate with ACL footprint size [57]. Microscopic analysis of HT autograft demonstrates a 20% to 40% higher number of collagen fibrils and fibroblasts compared to patellar tendon autografts [47].

When comparing the CSA of the BPTB (33 – 61 mm2) [50, 57, 85, 105], HT (52 – 64 mm2) [50, 57, 85], and QT (71 – 91 mm2) [50, 85, 105] autografts to the intact ACL, the QT appears to most closely approximate the size of the native footprint. These descriptive data are supported by a cadaveric study comparing the microscopic anatomy of BPTB and QT autograft, showing more favorable femoral insertion width, insertion thickness, and graft bending angle for the QT autograft [64].

When comparing histological features of commonly used autografts, none can replace the complex ultrastructural characteristics of the native ACL [16, 46]. The native ACL has a lower collagen fibril to interstitium ratio, yet higher fibroblast, elastic fibril, and blood vessel density compared to all autograft options [46]. A high percentage of collagen fibrils in tendon and ligament is associated with increased structural properties, but negatively influences elasticity and tendon constriction [46].

Allograft

Allografts can be generally subdivided into all-soft tissue and bone-tendon grafts. Soft tissue allografts include hamstring, tibialis anterior, tibialis posterior, peroneal tendon, and iliotibial band/fascia lata, while subtypes of bone-tendon allografts are BPTB, QT with patellar bone block, or Achilles tendon with calcaneal bone block. Similar to autograft options, BPTB allograft is the only allograft with bone blocks on either tendon side, and therefore the only option providing femoral and tibial bone-to-bone healing. While allografts have similar anatomical properties to their autograft correlates, the use of allograft offers the option of customizing graft size to the individual patient’s anatomy.

Biomechanics

When considering biomechanical studies of the native ACL and its respective graft options, it is important to recognize that numerous factors influence outcomes, including experimental testing variables (temperature, storage, freezing and thawing time, specimen orientation, measurement techniques, loading rate), as well as patient or cadaver-specific factors (age, body weight, immobilization, or activities performed during the life of the donor) [126]. It is therefore inherent to biomechanical research that the results of individual studies vary greatly. It is also important to understand that biomechanical graft characteristics change during the healing process and therefore reflect only time zero. The following will review the biomechanical characteristics of the ACL in relation to various graft options, bearing in mind these limitations of biomechanical research.

Ultimate load to failure

Native ACL

The primary and secondary functions of the ACL are to prevent anterior translation and internal rotation of the tibia, respectively, in relation to the femur. Studies on structural properties of the native ACL report an age- and sex-dependent ultimate load to failure of 2160 ± 157 Newtons (N) in young adults [127]. These values decrease over time to 658 ± 129 N in specimens older than 60 years of age [18, 127].

Autograft

The ultimate load to failure of BPTB autograft ranges from 319 to 4389 N, with the highest load reported in 15 mm-wide grafts [75]. In clinical practice, 10 mm-wide grafts with ultimate loads to failure of 1880 to 2664 N are typically used [26, 50, 111].

Similarly, the ultimate load to failure for a 10 to 12 mm-wide QT autograft ranges from 249 to 2186 N [50, 75, 111]. QT autograft with bone block, as well as full-thickness grafts appear to have higher ultimate loads to failure compared to all-soft tissue or partial thickness grafts [111].

For HT autograft, graft configuration (including total number of strands) correlates with graft size, which is in turn positively correlated with tensile strength [14]. Depending on graft configuration, graft diameters ranging from 6 mm to over 10 mm can be obtained with ultimate loads to failure ranging from 225 to 4590 N [50, 75, 111]. While a graft should have a minimum thickness of 8 mm, increased graft CSA is associated with an increased complication risk due to notch and PCL impingement [49, 74, 76, 89].

In a recent study by Hart et al. comparing the biomechanical properties of the three most common autografts, no statistically significant difference was found in ultimate load to failure among the graft options [50]. Thus, in terms of ultimate load to failure, all graft options appear to be viable substitutes for the native ACL.

Stiffness

To restore normal knee kinematics and physiologic joint forces the stiffness of the used graft should be similar to the native ACL. Supraphysiologic graft stiffness results in knee over-constraint and increased chondral stress, thereby increasing the risk of early onset osteoarthritis [48, 112].

Native ACL

Values for native ACL stiffness are reported to be 242 ± 28 N/mm in young adults. As with ultimate load to failure, these values decrease with age to 180 ± 25 N/mm in patients over 60 [127].

Autograft

For BPTB grafts, stiffness is reported to range from 158 to 685.2 N/mm, with values between 324 and 543 N/mm for grafts of 10 mm width [3, 75, 111]. For QT, stiffness is reported to be between 17.0 and 809.0 N/mm, with the smallest values seen by Noyes et al. when testing a quadriceps tendon-patellar retinaculum-patellar tendon graft construct [83]. A similarly wide range of stiffness (4.1 to 1148.0 N/mm) has been reported for HT autografts due to the variability in graft configurations [75].

When comparing all three graft options, Hart et al. [50] found a significantly higher stiffness for QT (672 ± 210 N/mm) compared to four-stand HT (397 ± 91 N/mm), yet similar values when compared to BTPB (543 ± 73 N/mm). In contrast, Strauss et al. [111] reported higher cyclic loading stiffness values for HT (273 ± 49.5 N/mm) compared to BPTB (151 ± 25.5 N/mm) and QT (157 to 173 N/mm, depending on configuration).

In summary, graft stiffness is an important factor in graft choice for ACL-R. At time zero, none of the grafts can perfectly mimic the native ACL and little evidence exists thereafter. It seems that the HT graft has the highest tendency towards supraphysiologic stiffness.

Modulus, stress and strain

Native ACL

Modulus of elasticity for the native ACL is reported to be between 111 and 124 MPa [18, 84]. This is generally lower than the reported moduli for ACL graft options; a recent systematic review including 26 biomechanical studies of commonly used grafts reported higher ranges for each of the three most prevalent autograft options, as well the majority of allografts [75].

Autograft

Modulus, maximum stress, and failure strain for BPTB range from 184 to 337.8 MPa, 21.6 to 101.3 MPa, and 0.16 to 25%, respectively. For QT, the same values range from 153.0 to 255.3 MPa, 9.7 to 23.9 MPa, and 2.0 to 10.7%. HT values are reported to be as high as 144.8 to 904.0 MPa, 65.6 to 156.0 MPa, and 0.3 to 33.0%, respectively [92].

Allograft

As with autografts, the structural and mechanical characteristics of allografts differ depending on harvest site. Common allograft options frequently meet or exceed the biomechanical properties of the native ACL [65]. For single-stranded grafts, the lowest and highest load to failure are reported for tibialis anterior and quadriceps tendon allografts, respectively [5, 65, 105]. While gender does not appear to have an effect on allograft properties [61], older donor age has been negatively correlated with biomechanical characteristics [13, 41, 61, 116].

Allograft processing

In addition to donor characteristics, graft preservation techniques alter the properties of allograft tendon. These changes are important to recognize when considering the use of allograft. Gamma irradiation and electron beam (E-beam) are employed for inactivation of bacteria and other pathogens. Mixed effects have been reported for low-dose gamma irradiation (< 20 kGy), with little [28, 130] or no decrease in stiffness and ultimate load to failure [11, 41, 78]. However, a positive dose-dependent effect of high irradiation is seen on mechanical tendon properties, altering the integrity of the tendon with a decrease in ultimate load to failure of up to 74% compared to non-irradiated tissue [9, 33, 38, 78, 104]. Similarly, E-beam irradiation produces detrimental effects on structural properties [43, 52], albeit to a lesser extent than gamma irradiation [51]. Varied biomechanical effects have also been reported for chemical sterilization including peracetic acid, BioCleanse1 (RTI Surgical, Inc), ethylene oxide, or supercritical CO2 treatment [5, 8, 30, 61, 100, 101, 103].

Methods of preservation also influence tendon properties [37, 113]. Freezing a tendon at -80 °C increases the mean diameter of collagen fibrils, while the mean number of fibrils decreases. Biomechanically, this corresponds to a decrease in ultimate load (decrease of 82% compared to fresh frozen), ultimate stress (decrease of 70% compared to fresh frozen), and ultimate strain, yet an increase in stiffness [37]. Furthermore, multiple freeze–thaw cycles appear to affect histological and biomechanical tendon properties, although study results remain contradictory [19, 63, 115]. Alternative preservation techniques like glycerolization, lyophilization, or preservation with chloroform–methanol extraction may also lead to a 50% decrease in the structural and mechanical properties of the allograft [43, 133].

In summary, fresh frozen allograft tissue may meet or exceed the biomechanical characteristics of the native ACL, however various sterilization and preservation methods alter histological and biomechanical graft properties. While low dose irradiation appears to have little influence on graft biomechanics, moderate- to high-dose irradiation and chemical processing have detrimental tissue effects and should be avoided when possible.

Graft incorporation

Much of our current knowledge about graft incorporation derives from animal studies. It should be noted that animal studies carry potential bias, including time-dependent differences in soft tissue remodeling compared to humans. Furthermore, postoperative immobilization and physiotherapy, both recognized in optimizing graft incorporation, cannot often be performed in animals. Therefore, these studies should be used cautiously when treating and advising patients [65].

Graft remodeling occurs within the first six months postoperatively and may continue for years [1, 22, 71, 125, 131]. During this time, the implanted tendon undergoes a remodeling where the composition and organization of the tendon are adapted to new intraarticular conditions and functions [102]. When compared to BPTB autograft, HT autograft appears to have delayed progression (6 to 12 months vs. 12 to 24 months) of remodeling [1, 31, 60, 95, 99]. Similarly, in one study superior graft maturity was observed for QT autograft with bone block versus HT autograft at six months postoperatively [73], although a second study reported no difference [87]. The results of earlier studies of graft maturation have been recently challenged using quantitative MRI UTE-T2* and T2* mapping, showing no difference in maturation between BPTB and HT autograft [22]. Furthermore, graft maturation has not been correlated with clinical outcome and rotatory knee stability one and two years after HT ACL-R [69, 71].

Graft-to-bone integration is necessary for optimal healing and resemblance of the physiologic ACL [88]. Early histological and biomechanical animal studies suggest that bone-to-bone healing is faster and stronger compared to tendon-to-bone healing (8 vs. 12 weeks) [6, 73, 88, 93, 120]. However, this widely accepted theory has been disputed by a recent in vivo human study showing similar graft-tunnel motion at 6 and 12 months postoperatively between BPTB and HT autograft, suggesting that bone-to-bone may not be necessarily faster than ligament-to-bone healing [59].

Animal studies also suggest that higher graft-to-bone contact area has positive effects on tendon–bone healing, especially in the early period after ACL-R [12, 23, 132]. Additionally, healing is sensitive to dynamic changes in graft forces, with early high forces on the ACL graft appearing to impair graft-tunnel osseointegration [72].

Graft fixation

With the advent of faster and more aggressive rehabilitation protocols, the primary aim of graft fixation is to provide stability of the graft within the bone tunnel until graft-to-bone incorporation is accomplished. Optimal graft fixation minimizes graft elongation, longitudinal (“bungee effect”) and transverse (“windshield wiper”) graft movement, as well as influx of synovial fluid into the bone tunnel by maximizing strength, stiffness, stability, and durability. Despite advancements in graft fixation methods, the fixation point remains the weakest link in the graft-to-bone interface and is therefore crucial to the success of ACL-R.

Several direct and indirect methods of graft fixation have been described. Direct methods include absorbable and non-absorbable interference screws, cross pins, staples, washers, or hardware-free press-fit fixation, whereas indirect devices include fixed or adjustable suspensory cortical button fixation. At this point, there is no clear consensus regarding the “best” graft fixation method, as each option has advantages and disadvantages. Several recent meta-analyses [20, 24, 53, 82, 106] and network meta-analyses [53, 129] have demonstrated no superiority in clinical or patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of any particular fixation method. However, a recent meta-analysis of 40 studies found improved arthrometric stability and fewer graft ruptures but no difference in PROs using suspensory- compared to interference screw fixation for quadrupled HT autograft [15].

Advantages of suspensory fixation include the ease and simplicity of technique, the possibility of a thicker graft with higher graft-to-bone contact area resulting in superior graft incorporation, as well as excellent fixation strength and stiffness [23, 35, 77, 79]. When comparing fixed loop- to adjustable loop suspension, superior biomechanical results have been observed for fixed loop devices [86, 92]. Compared to interference screws, less tunnel widening is seen when using suspensory fixation or cross pins, which becomes relevant in revision cases [21, 35, 80]. Graft elongation as well as longitudinal and transverse movements appear to be lower using interference screws, especially when screws are placed close to the joint surface [70, 77, 94].

Hardware-free press-fit techniques have been reported, showing promising outcomes comparable to traditional techniques with low rates of tunnel enlargement [4, 10, 44, 106].

Conclusion

Graft choice has a considerable influence on postoperative outcomes and remains an easily adjustable surgical factor affecting graft rupture and reoperation rates. When comparing anatomical, histological, and morphological features of commonly used grafts to the native ACL, none can perfectly replicate the complex characteristics of the native ACL. Biomechanically, however, both autograft and allograft show equivalent or increased characteristics compared to the native ACL and represent viable options for ACL-R. There further remains limited evidence as to the superiority of one graft in terms of maturation and incorporation, yet the available literature suggests that allograft may demonstrate slower graft incorporation and maturity compared to autograft tissue. Finally, methods of graft fixation have unique advantages and disadvantages that affect graft properties, and should be carefully considered when selecting the optimal graft for each patient.

  

Advantages

Weaknesses

Anatomy

QT

QT up to 20% more collagen fibers and a higher density of fibroblasts than BPTB

Possibility of different harvest configurations

Largest CSA

Sometimes short graft

BPTB

Possibility to harvest with bone block on each site

Smallest CSA of all grafts

Not able to replace the complex ultrastructural characteristics of the native ACL

HT

Possibility of different graft configurations to individualize graft thickness

Unpredictable tendon thickness

Allograft

All possible graft configurations depending on the used tendon

Customizing graft size to the individual patient’s anatomy

Processed tissue

Biomechanics

QT

Similar load to failure than BPTB but higher than native ACL

Two layers may sometimes separate

BPTB

Similar load to failure than QT but higher than native ACL

Bone tendon junction may have tendinosis

HT

Common graft configurations exceed the load to failure of the native ACL

Load to failure depending on graft configuration

Tendency to supraphysiologic stiffness if multistrand graft

Allograft

Highest load to failures reported for the quadriceps tendon allograft

Older donor age negatively correlated with biomechanical characteristics

Graft sterilization and preservation techniques influence biomechanical graft properties

Graft Incorporation

QT

Faster incorporation compared to HT autograft

Possibility for one-sided bone-to-bone healing

Short tendon-tunnel interface

BPTB

Faster incorporation compared to HT autograft

Possible faster graft incorporation due to bone–to–bone healing

Size mismatch

HT

 

Delayed incorporation compared to BPTB and QT

no possibility of bone-to-bone healing

Allograft

 

Slower graft maturation process as well as slower onset and rate of revascularization

References

  1. Abe S, Kurosaka M, Iguchi T, Yoshiya S, Hirohata K (1993) Light and electron microscopic study of remodeling and maturation process in autogenous graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 9:394–405

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Abebe ES, Kim JP, Utturkar GM, Taylor DC, Spritzer CE, Moorman CT 3rd, Garrett WE, DeFrate LE (2011) The effect of femoral tunnel placement on ACL graft orientation and length during in vivo knee flexion. J Biomech 44:1914–1920

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Aicale R, Maffulli N (2020) Combined medial patellofemoral and medial patellotibial reconstruction for patellar instability: a PRISMA systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 15:529

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Akoto R, Müller-Hübenthal J, Balke M, Albers M, Bouillon B, Helm P, Banerjee M, Höher J (2015) Press-fit fixation using autologous bone in the tibial canal causes less enlargement of bone tunnel diameter in ACL reconstruction - a CT scan analysis three months postoperatively. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:200

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Almqvist KF, Jan H, Vercruysse C, Verbeeck R, Verdonk R (2007) The tibialis tendon as a valuable anterior cruciate ligament allograft substitute: biomechanical properties. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:1326–1330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Amano H, Tanaka Y, Kita K, Uchida R, Tachibana Y, Yonetani Y, Mae T, Shiozaki Y, Horibe S (2019) Significant anterior enlargement of femoral tunnel aperture after hamstring ACL reconstruction, compared to bone–patellar tendon–bone graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:461–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Arnold MP, Calcei JG, Vogel N, Magnussen RA, Clatworthy M, Spalding T, Campbell JD, Bergfeld JA, Sherman SL, Group ACLS (2021) ACL Study Group survey reveals the evolution of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft choice over the past three decades. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:3871–3876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baldini T, Caperton K, Hawkins M, McCarty E (2016) Effect of a novel sterilization method on biomechanical properties of soft tissue allografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3971–3975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Balsly CR, Cotter AT, Williams LA, Gaskins BD, Moore MA, Wolfinbarger L Jr (2008) Effect of low dose and moderate dose gamma irradiation on the mechanical properties of bone and soft tissue allografts. Cell Tissue Bank 9:289–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barié A, Sprinckstub T, Huber J, Jaber A (2020) Quadriceps tendon vs. patellar tendon autograft for ACL reconstruction using a hardware-free press-fit fixation technique: comparable stability, function and return-to-sport level but less donor site morbidity in athletes after 10 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140:1465–1474

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bhatia S, Bell R, Frank RM, Rodeo SA, Bach BR Jr, Cole BJ, Chubinskaya S, Wang VM, Verma NN (2012) Bony incorporation of soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament grafts in an animal model: autograft versus allograft with low-dose gamma irradiation. Am J Sports Med 40:1789–1798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Biset A, Douiri A, Robinson JR, Laboudie P, Colombet P, Graveleau N, Bouguennec N (2022) Tibial tunnel expansion does not correlate with four-strand graft maturation after ACL reconstruction using adjustable cortical suspensory fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07051-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Blevins FT, Hecker AT, Bigler GT, Boland AL, Hayes WC (1994) The effects of donor age and strain rate on the biomechanical properties of bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts. Am J Sports Med 22:328–333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Boniello MR, Schwingler PM, Bonner JM, Robinson SP, Cotter A, Bonner KF (2015) Impact of hamstring graft diameter on tendon strength: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 31:1084–1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Browning WM 3rd, Kluczynski MA, Curatolo C, Marzo JM (2017) Suspensory versus aperture fixation of a quadrupled hamstring tendon autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 45:2418–2427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Castile RM, Jenkins MJ, Lake SP, Brophy RH (2020) Microstructural and mechanical properties of grafts commonly used for cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102:1948–1955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cavaignac E, Pailhe R, Murgier J, Reina N, Lauwers F, Chiron P (2014) Can the gracilis be used to replace the anterior cruciate ligament in the knee? A cadaver study. Knee 21:1014–1017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chandrashekar N, Mansouri H, Slauterbeck J, Hashemi J (2006) Sex-based differences in the tensile properties of the human anterior cruciate ligament. J Biomech 39:2943–2950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen L, Wu Y, Yu J, Jiao Z, Ao Y, Yu C, Wang J, Cui G (2011) Effect of repeated freezing-thawing on the Achilles tendon of rabbits. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1028–1034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen W, Li H, Chen Y, Jiang F, Wu Y, Chen S (2019) Bone-patellar tendon–bone autografts versus hamstring autografts using the same suspensory fixations in ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med 7:232596711988531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chiang ER, Chen KH, Chih-Chang Lin A, Wang ST, Wu HT, Ma HL, Chang MC, Liu CL, Chen TH (2019) Comparison of tunnel enlargement and clinical outcome between bioabsorbable interference screws and cortical button-post fixation in arthroscopic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized study with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Arthroscopy 35:544–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chu CR, Williams AA (2019) Quantitative MRI UTE-T2* and T2* show progressive and continued graft maturation over 2 years in human patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med 7:2325967119863056

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Colombet P, Graveleau N, Jambou S (2016) Incorporation of hamstring grafts within the tibial tunnel after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: magnetic resonance imaging of suspensory fixation versus interference screws. Am J Sports Med 44:2838–2845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Colvin A, Sharma C, Parides M, Glashow J (2011) What is the best femoral fixation of hamstring autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1075–1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cone SG, Howe D, Fisher MB (2019) Size and shape of the human anterior cruciate ligament and the impact of sex and skeletal growth: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 7:e8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cooper DE, Deng XH, Burstein AL, Warren RF (1993) The strength of the central third patellar. tendon graft: a biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med 21:818–824

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Csapo R, Runer A, Hoser C, Fink C (2021) Contralateral ACL tears strongly contribute to high rates of secondary ACL injuries in professional ski racers. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:1805–1812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Curran AR, Adams DJ, Gill JL, Steiner ME, Scheller AD (2004) The biomechanical effects of low-dose irradiation on bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts. Am J Sports Med 32:1131–1135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Della Villa F, Hagglund M, Della Villa S, Ekstrand J, Walden M (2021) High rate of second ACL injury following ACL reconstruction in male professional footballers: an updated longitudinal analysis from 118 players in the UEFA elite club injury study. Br J Sports Med 55:1350–1356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dong S, Huangfu X, Xie G, Zhang Y, Shen P, Li X, Qi J, Zhao J (2015) Decellularized versus fresh-frozen allografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an in vitro study in a rabbit model. Am J Sports Med 43:1924–1934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Faltstrom A, Kvist J, Hagglund M (2021) High risk of new knee injuries in female soccer players after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at 5- to 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 49:3479–3487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fideler BM, Vangsness CT Jr, Lu B, Orlando C, Moore T (1995) Gamma irradiation: effects on biomechanical properties of human bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts. Am J Sports Med 23:643–646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fink C, Herbort M, Abermann E, Hoser C (2014) Minimally invasive harvest of a quadriceps tendon graft with or without a bone block. Arthrosc Tech 3:e509-513

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Fu C-W, Chen W-C, Lu Y-C (2020) Is all-inside with suspensory cortical button fixation a superior technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 21(1):445

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Fujimaki Y, Thorhauer E, Sasaki Y, Smolinski P, Tashman S, Fu FH (2016) Quantitative in situ analysis of the anterior cruciate ligament: length, midsubstance cross-sectional area, and insertion site areas. Am J Sports Med 44:118–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Giannini S, Buda R, Di Caprio F, Agati P, Bigi A, De Pasquale V, Ruggeri A (2008) Effects of freezing on the biomechanical and structural properties of human posterior tibial tendons. Int Orthop 32:145–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gibbons MJ, Butler DL, Grood ES, Bylski-Austrow DI, Levy MS, Noyes FR (1991) Effects of gamma irradiation on the initial mechanical and material properties of goat bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts. J Orthop Res 9:209–218

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, Lind M, Forssblad M, Albrektsen G, Drogset JO (2014) Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med 42:2319–2328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Goto K, Duthon VB, Menetrey J (2022) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadriceps tendon autograft is a viable option for small-statured female patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:2358–2363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Greaves LL, Hecker AT, Brown CH Jr (2008) The effect of donor age and low-dose gamma irradiation on the initial biomechanical properties of human tibialis tendon allografts. Am J Sports Med 36:1358–1366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Guenoun D, Vaccaro J, Le Corroller T, Barral PA, Lagier A, Pauly V, Coquart B, Coste J, Champsaur P (2017) A dynamic study of the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee using an open MRI. Surg Radiol Anat 39:307–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gut G, Marowska J, Jastrzebska A, Olender E, Kaminski A (2016) Structural mechanical properties of radiation-sterilized human Bone-Tendon-Bone grafts preserved by different methods. Cell Tissue Bank 17:277–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Häberli J, Heilgemeir M, Valet S, Aiyangar A, Overes T, Henle P, Eggli S (2022) Novel press-fit technique of patellar bone plug in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is comparable to interference screw fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142:1963–1970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hadjicostas PT, Soucacos PN, Berger I, Koleganova N, Paessler HH (2007) Comparative analysis of the morphologic structure of quadriceps and patellar tendon: a descriptive laboratory study. Arthroscopy 23:744–750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hadjicostas PT, Soucacos PN, Koleganova N, Krohmer G, Berger I (2008) Comparative and morphological analysis of commonly used autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the native ACL: an electron, microscopic and morphologic study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:1099–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hadjicostas PT, Soucacos PN, Paessler HH, Koleganova N, Berger I (2007) Morphologic and histologic comparison between the patella and hamstring tendons grafts: a descriptive and anatomic study. Arthroscopy 23:751–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Halonen KS, Mononen ME, Toyras J, Kroger H, Joukainen A, Korhonen RK (2016) Optimal graft stiffness and pre-strain restore normal joint motion and cartilage responses in ACL reconstructed knee. J Biomech 49:2566–2576

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hamner DL, Brown CH Jr, Steiner ME, Hecker AT, Hayes WC (1999) Hamstring tendon grafts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: biomechanical evaluation of the use of multiple strands and tensioning techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:549–557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hart D, Gurney-Dunlop T, Leiter J, Longstaffe R, Eid AS, McRae S, MacDonald P (2022) Biomechanics of hamstring tendon, quadriceps tendon, and bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03247-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hoburg A, Keshlaf S, Schmidt T, Smith M, Gohs U, Perka C, Pruss A, Scheffler S (2015) High-dose electron beam sterilization of soft-tissue grafts maintains significantly improved biomechanical properties compared to standard gamma treatment. Cell Tissue Bank 16:219–226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hoburg AT, Keshlaf S, Schmidt T, Smith M, Gohs U, Perka C, Pruss A, Scheffler S (2010) Effect of electron beam irradiation on biomechanical properties of patellar tendon allografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 38:1134–1140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hurley ET, Gianakos AL, Anil U, Strauss EJ, Gonzalez-Lomas G (2019) No difference in outcomes between femoral fixation methods with hamstring autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - a network meta-analysis. Knee 26:292–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hurley ET, Mojica ES, Kanakamedala AC, Meislin RJ, Strauss EJ, Campbell KA, Alaia MJ (2022) Quadriceps tendon has a lower re-rupture rate than hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - a meta-analysis. J Isakos 7:87–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Iriuchishima T, Ryu K, Aizawa S, Fu FH (2015) Proportional evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament footprint size and knee bony morphology. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3157–3162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Iriuchishima T, Ryu K, Aizawa S, Fu FH (2015) Size correlation between the tibial anterior cruciate ligament footprint and the tibia plateau. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1147–1152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Iriuchishima T, Ryu K, Yorifuji H, Aizawa S, Fu FH (2014) Commonly used ACL autograft areas do not correlate with the size of the ACL footprint or the femoral condyle. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1573–1579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Iriuchishima T, Yorifuji H, Aizawa S, Tajika Y, Murakami T, Fu FH (2014) Evaluation of ACL mid-substance cross-sectional area for reconstructed autograft selection. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:207–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Irvine JN, Arner JW, Thorhauer E, Abebe ES, D’Auria J, Schreiber VM, Harner CD, Tashman S (2016) Is there a difference in graft motion for bone-tendon-bone and hamstring autograft ACL reconstruction at 6 weeks and 1 year? Am J Sports Med 44:2599–2607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Janssen RPA, Van Der Wijk J, Fiedler A, Schmidt T, Sala HAGM, Scheffler SU (2011) Remodelling of human hamstring autografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1299–1306

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Jones DB, Huddleston PM, Zobitz ME, Stuart MJ (2007) Mechanical properties of patellar tendon allografts subjected to chemical sterilization. Arthroscopy 23:400–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Jordan MJ, Doyle-Baker P, Heard M, Aagaard P, Herzog W (2017) A retrospective analysis of concurrent pathology in ACL-reconstructed knees of elite alpine ski racers. Orthop J Sports Med 5:2325967117714756

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Jung HJ, Vangipuram G, Fisher MB, Yang G, Hsu S, Bianchi J, Ronholdt C, Woo SL (2011) The effects of multiple freeze-thaw cycles on the biomechanical properties of the human bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft. J Orthop Res 29:1193–1198

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Kinoshita T, Hashimoto Y, Iida K, Nakamura H (2022) ACL graft matching: cadaveric comparison of microscopic anatomy of quadriceps and patellar tendon grafts and the femoral ACL insertion site. Am J Sports Med 50:2953–2960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lansdown DA, Riff AJ, Meadows M, Yanke AB, Bach BR Jr (2017) What factors influence the biomechanical properties of allograft tissue for ACL reconstruction? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:2412–2426

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Lee BH, Jangir R, Kim HY, Shin JM, Chang M, Kim K, Wang JH (2017) Comparison of anterior cruciate ligament volume after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 24:580–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Lee BH, Seo DY, Bansal S, Kim JH, Ahn JH, Wang JH (2016) Comparative magnetic resonance imaging study of cross-sectional area of anatomic double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction grafts and the contralateral uninjured knee. Arthroscopy 32(321–329):e321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lee JK, Lee S, Seong SC, Lee MC (2015) Anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament insertion sites: comparison of plain radiography and three-dimensional computed tomographic imaging to anatomic dissection. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:2297–2305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Li H, Chen J, Li H, Wu Z, Chen S (2017) MRI-based ACL graft maturity does not predict clinical and functional outcomes during the first year after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:3171–3178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Lubowitz JH, Schwartzberg R, Smith P (2015) Cortical suspensory button versus aperture interference screw fixation for knee anterior cruciate ligament soft-tissue allograft: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy 31:1733–1739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Lutz PM, Achtnich A, Schütte V, Woertler K, Imhoff AB, Willinger L (2022) Anterior cruciate ligament autograft maturation on sequential postoperative MRI is not correlated with clinical outcome and anterior knee stability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:3258–3267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ma R, Schar M, Chen T, Sisto M, Nguyen J, Voigt C, Deng XH, Rodeo SA (2018) Effect of dynamic changes in anterior cruciate ligament in situ graft force on the biological healing response of the graft-tunnel interface. Am J Sports Med 46:915–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Ma Y, Murawski CD, Rahnemai-Azar AA, Maldjian C, Lynch AD, Fu FH (2015) Graft maturity of the reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament 6 months postoperatively: a magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of quadriceps tendon with bone block and hamstring tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:661–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Magnussen RA, Lawrence JT, West RL, Toth AP, Taylor DC, Garrett WE (2012) Graft size and patient age are predictors of early revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft. Arthroscopy 28:526–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Malige A, Baghdadi S, Hast MW, Schmidt EC, Shea KG, Ganley TJ (2022) Biomechanical properties of common graft choices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 95:105636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Mariscalco MW, Flanigan DC, Mitchell J, Pedroza AD, Jones MH, Andrish JT, Parker RD, Kaeding CC, Magnussen RA (2013) The influence of hamstring autograft size on patient-reported outcomes and risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) cohort study. Arthroscopy 29:1948–1953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Mayr R, Heinrichs CH, Eichinger M, Coppola C, Schmoelz W, Attal R (2015) Biomechanical comparison of 2 anterior cruciate ligament graft preparation techniques for tibial fixation: adjustable-length loop cortical button or interference screw. Am J Sports Med 43:1380–1385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. McGilvray KC, Santoni BG, Turner AS, Bogdansky S, Wheeler DL, Puttlitz CM (2011) Effects of (60)Co gamma radiation dose on initial structural biomechanical properties of ovine bone–patellar tendon–bone allografts. Cell Tissue Bank 12:89–98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Milano G, Mulas PD, Ziranu F, Piras S, Manunta A, Fabbriciani C (2006) Comparison between different femoral fixation devices for ACL reconstruction with doubled hamstring tendon graft: a biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy 22:660–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Monaco E, Fabbri M, Redler A, Gaj E, De Carli A, Argento G, Saithna A, Ferretti A (2019) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with greater tibial tunnel widening when using a bioabsorbable screw compared to an all-inside technique with suspensory fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:2577–2584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Mouarbes D, Dagneaux L, Olivier M, Lavoue V, Peque E, Berard E, Cavaignac E (2020) Lower donor-site morbidity using QT autografts for ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28:2558–2566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Nie S, Zhou S, Huang W (2022) Femoral fixation methods for hamstring graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a network meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. PLoS One 17:e0275097

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Noyes FR, Butler DL, Grood ES, Zernicke RF, Hefzy MS (1984) Biomechanical analysis of human ligament grafts used in knee-ligament repairs and reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:344–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Noyes FR, Grood ES (1976) The strength of the anterior cruciate ligament in humans and Rhesus monkeys. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58:1074–1082

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Offerhaus C, Albers M, Nagai K, Arner JW, Hoher J, Musahl V, Fu FH (2018) Individualized anterior cruciate ligament graft matching. in vivo comparison of cross-sectional areas of hamstring, patellar, and quadriceps tendon grafts and ACL insertion area. Am J Sports Med 46:2646–2652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Onggo JR, Nambiar M, Pai V (2019) Fixed- versus adjustable-loop devices for femoral fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 35:2484–2498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Panos JA, Devitt BM, Feller JA, Klemm HJ, Hewett TE, Webster KE (2021) Effect of time on MRI appearance of graft after ACL reconstruction: a comparison of autologous hamstring and quadriceps tendon grafts. Orthop J Sports Med 9:23259671211023510

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Park MJ, Lee MC, Seong SC (2001) A comparative study of the healing of tendon autograft and tendon-bone autograft using patellar tendon in rabbits. Int Orthop 25:35–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Park SY, Oh H, Park S, Lee JH, Lee SH, Yoon KH (2013) Factors predicting hamstring tendon autograft diameters and resulting failure rates after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:1111–1118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Persson A, Fjeldsgaard K, Gjertsen JE, Kjellsen AB, Engebretsen L, Hole RM, Fevang JM (2014) Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004–2012. Am J Sports Med 42:285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Lind M (2014) Comparison of hamstring tendon and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a nationwide population-based cohort study: results from the danish registry of knee ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 42:278–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Ranjan R, Gaba S, Goel L, Asif N, Kalra M, Kumar R, Kumar A (2018) In vivo comparison of a fixed loop (EndoButton CL) with an adjustable loop (TightRope RT) device for femoral fixation of the graft in ACL reconstruction: a prospective randomized study and a literature review. J Orthop Surg 26:230949901879978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, Hidaka C, Warren RF (1993) Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel. A biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1795–1803

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Rodeo SA, Kawamura S, Kim HJ, Dynybil C, Ying L (2006) Tendon healing in a bone tunnel differs at the tunnel entrance versus the tunnel exit: an effect of graft-tunnel motion? Am J Sports Med 34:1790–1800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Rougraff B, Shelbourne KD, Gerth PK, Warner J (1993) Arthroscopic and histologic analysis of human patellar tendon autografts used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 21:277–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Runer A, Csapo R, Hepperger C, Herbort M, Hoser C, Fink C (2020) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with quadriceps tendon autograft result in lower graft rupture rates but similar patient-reported outcomes as compared with hamstring tendon autograft: a comparison of 875 patients. Am J Sports Med 48:2195–2204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Runer A, Suter A, di Sarsina TR, Jucho L, Gfoller P, Csapo R, Hoser C, Fink C (2022) Quadriceps tendon autograft for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction show comparable clinical, functional, and patient reported outcome measurements, but lower donor site morbidity compared with hamstring tendon autograft: a matched-pairs study with a mean follow-up of 6.5 years. J ISAKOS. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2022.08.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Samuelsen BT, Webster KE, Johnson NR, Hewett TE, Krych AJ (2017) Hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon autograft for ACL reconstruction: is there a difference in graft failure rate? A meta-analysis of 47,613 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:2459–2468

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Sanchez M, Anitua E, Azofra J, Prado R, Muruzabal F, Andia I (2010) Ligamentization of tendon grafts treated with an endogenous preparation rich in growth factors: gross morphology and histology. Arthroscopy 26:470–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Scheffler SU, Gonnermann J, Kamp J, Przybilla D, Pruss A (2008) Remodeling of ACL allografts is inhibited by peracetic acid sterilization. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1810–1818

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Scheffler SU, Scherler J, Pruss A, Von Versen R, Weiler A (2005) Biomechanical comparison of human bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts after sterilization with peracetic acid ethanol. Cell Tissue Banking 6:109–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Scheffler SU, Unterhauser FN, Weiler A (2008) Graft remodeling and ligamentization after cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:834–842

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Schimizzi A, Wedemeyer M, Odell T, Thomas W, Mahar AT, Pedowitz R (2007) Effects of a novel sterilization process on soft tissue mechanical properties for anterior cruciate ligament allografts. Am J Sports Med 35:612–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Schwartz HE, Matava MJ, Proch FS, Butler CA, Ratcliffe A, Levy M, Butler DL (2006) The effect of gamma irradiation on anterior cruciate ligament allograft biomechanical and biochemical properties in the caprine model at time zero and at 6 months after surgery. Am J Sports Med 34:1747–1755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Shani RH, Umpierez E, Nasert M, Hiza EA, Xerogeanes J (2016) Biomechanical comparison of quadriceps and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 32:71–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Shanmugaraj A, Mahendralingam M, Gohal C, Horner N, Simunovic N, Musahl V, Samuelsson K, Ayeni OR (2021) Press-fit fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yields low graft failure and revision rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:1750–1759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Siebold R, Ellert T, Metz S, Metz J (2008) Femoral insertions of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament: morphometry and arthroscopic orientation models for double-bundle bone tunnel placement–a cadaver study. Arthroscopy 24:585–592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Siebold R, Ellert T, Metz S, Metz J (2008) Tibial insertions of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament: morphometry, arthroscopic landmarks, and orientation model for bone tunnel placement. Arthroscopy 24:154–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Siebold R, Schuhmacher P, Fernandez F, Smigielski R, Fink C, Brehmer A, Kirsch J (2015) Flat midsubstance of the anterior cruciate ligament with tibial “C”-shaped insertion site. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3136–3142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Smigielski R, Zdanowicz U, Drwiega M, Ciszek B, Ciszkowska-Lyson B, Siebold R (2015) Ribbon like appearance of the midsubstance fibres of the anterior cruciate ligament close to its femoral insertion site: a cadaveric study including 111 knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3143–3150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Strauss MJ, Miles JW, Kennedy ML, Dornan GJ, Moatshe G, Lind M, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF (2022) Full thickness quadriceps tendon grafts with bone had similar material properties to bone-patellar tendon-bone and a four-strand semitendinosus grafts: a biomechanical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:1786–1794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Suggs J, Wang C, Li G (2003) The effect of graft stiffness on knee joint biomechanics after ACL reconstruction–a 3D computational simulation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 18:35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Suhodolcan L, Brojan M, Kosel F, Drobnic M, Alibegovic A, Brecelj J (2013) Cryopreservation with glycerol improves the in vitro biomechanical characteristics of human patellar tendon allografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:1218–1225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Suruga M, Horaguchi T, Iriuchishima T, Yahagi Y, Iwama G, Tokuhashi Y, Aizawa S (2017) Morphological size evaluation of the mid-substance insertion areas and the fan-like extension fibers in the femoral ACL footprint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1107–1113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Suto K, Urabe K, Naruse K, Uchida K, Matsuura T, Mikuni-Takagaki Y, Suto M, Nemoto N, Kamiya K, Itoman M (2012) Repeated freeze-thaw cycles reduce the survival rate of osteocytes in bone-tendon constructs without affecting the mechanical properties of tendons. Cell Tissue Bank 13:71–80

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Swank KR, Behn AW, Dragoo JL (2015) The effect of donor age on structural and mechanical properties of allograft tendons. Am J Sports Med 43:453–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Tampere T, Van Hoof T, Cromheecke M, Van der Bracht H, Chahla J, Verdonk P, Victor J (2017) The anterior cruciate ligament: a study on its bony and soft tissue anatomy using novel 3D CT technology. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:236–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Taylor KA, Cutcliffe HC, Queen RM, Utturkar GM, Spritzer CE, Garrett WE, DeFrate LE (2013) In vivo measurement of ACL length and relative strain during walking. J Biomech 46:478–483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Thein R, Spitzer E, Doyle J, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Chawla H, Lipman JD, Pearle AD (2016) The ACL Graft has different cross-sectional dimensions compared with the native ACL: implications for graft impingement. Am J Sports Med 44:2097–2105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Tomita F, Yasuda K, Mikami S, Sakai T, Yamazaki S, Tohyama H (2001) Comparisons of intraosseous graft healing between the doubled flexor tendon graft and the bone-patellar tendon-bone graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 17:461–476

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Treme G, Diduch DR, Billante MJ, Miller MD, Hart JM (2008) Hamstring graft size prediction: a prospective clinical evaluation. Am J Sports Med 36:2204–2209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Triantafyllidi E, Paschos NK, Goussia A, Barkoula NM, Exarchos DA, Matikas TE, Malamou-Mitsi V, Georgoulis AD (2013) The shape and the thickness of the anterior cruciate ligament along its length in relation to the posterior cruciate ligament: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 29:1963–1973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Tuca M, Hayter C, Potter H, Marx R, Green DW (2016) Anterior cruciate ligament and intercondylar notch growth plateaus prior to cessation of longitudinal growth: an MRI observational study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:780–787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Vermesan D, Prejbeanu R, Trocan I, Birsasteanu F, Florescu S, Balanescu A, Abbinante A, Caprio M, Potenza A, Dipalma G, Cagiano R, Inchingolo F, Haragus H (2015) Reconstructed ACLs have different cross-sectional areas compared to the native contralaterals on postoperative MRIs. A pilot study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 19:1155–1160

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Vogl TJ, Schmitt J, Lubrich J, Hochmuth K, Diebold T, Del Tredici K, Südkamp N (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 11:1450–1456

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Woo SL, Debski RE, Withrow JD, Janaushek MA (1999) Biomechanics of knee ligaments. Am J Sports Med 27:533–543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Woo SL, Hollis JM, Adams DJ, Lyon RM, Takai S (1991) Tensile properties of the human femur-anterior cruciate ligament-tibia complex. The effects of specimen age and orientation. Am J Sports Med 19:217–225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Xie X, Liu X, Chen Z, Yu Y, Peng S, Li Q (2015) A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 22:100–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Yan L, Li JJ, Zhu Y, Liu H, Liu R, Zhao B, Wang B (2021) Interference screws are more likely to perform better than cortical button and cross-pin fixation for hamstring autograft in ACL reconstruction: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:1850–1861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Yanke AB, Bell R, Lee A, Kang RW, Mather RC 3rd, Shewman EF, Wang VM, Bach BR Jr (2013) The biomechanical effects of 1.0 to 1.2 Mrad of gamma irradiation on human bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts. Am J Sports Med 41:835–840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Zaffagnini S, De Pasquale V, Marchesini Reggiani L, Russo A, Agati P, Bacchelli B, Marcacci M (2007) Neoligamentization process of BTPB used for ACL graft: histological evaluation from 6 months to 10 years. Knee 14:87–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Zhao F, Hu X, Zhang J, Shi W, Ren B, Huang H, Ao Y (2019) A more flattened bone tunnel has a positive effect on tendon–bone healing in the early period after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:3543–3551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Zimmerman MC, Contiliano JH, Parsons JR, Prewett A, Billotti J (1994) The biomechanics and histopathology of chemically processed patellar tendon allografts for anterior cruciate ligament replacement. Am J Sports Med 22:378–386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Emre Anil Özbek, MD was awarded a grant by ESSKA- University of Pittsburgh Sports Medicine Clinical and Research Fellowship, and The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) outside the submitted work.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Study performed at Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Armin Runer, Laura Keeling, Nyaluma Wagala, Emre Anil Özbek, Jonathan D. Hughes & Volker Musahl

  2. Department for Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Armin Runer

  3. Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Udayana, / Prof. Dr. I.G.N.G. Ngoerah General Hospital, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia

    Hans Nugraha

  4. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Emre Anil Özbek

  5. Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jonathan D. Hughes & Volker Musahl

Authors
  1. Armin Runer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Keeling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nyaluma Wagala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans Nugraha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emre Anil Özbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jonathan D. Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Volker Musahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armin Runer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest with the present study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Runer, A., Keeling, L., Wagala, N. et al. Current trends in graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction – part I: anatomy, biomechanics, graft incorporation and fixation. J EXP ORTOP 10, 37 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00600-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00600-4