Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2026
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Versus Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Results in No Significant Differences in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, Re-Rupture Rates, and Clinical Stability: A Meta-analysis of Level I Randomized Control Trials.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Davey Martin S, Hurley Eoghan T, Doyle Tom R, Dickens Jonathan F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), with hamstring tendon (HT) versus quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts.
METHODS: A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only RCTs of Level I evidence comparing clinical outcomes of ACLR with HT versus QT autografts were included. Descriptive statistics were performed with risk ratios utilized for dichotomous variables and the mean difference (MD) for continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at P-value < .05.
RESULTS: There were 6 RCTs including 374 patients (60% males) with a mean age of 26.7 ± 3.8 years who underwent ACLR with HT (n = 186) or QT (n = 188) autografts. Meta-analysis found there were no significant differences between those who underwent ACLR with either HT or QT autografts with respect to positive pivot-shift testing (risk ratio; 0.42, P = .42) and re-rupture rates (risk ratio; 1.03, P = .96). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the groups for all patient-reported outcome measures, namely International Knee Documentation Committee scores (MD; 0.00, P = .98) and Lysholm scores (MD; -0.21, P = .47) (MD; -0.18, P = .65). However, one study found a significant difference between the HT and QT groups with respect to donor site morbidity scores).
CONCLUSIONS: Current Level I evidence suggests that there is no significant difference between ACLR with HT or QT autografts in re-rupture rates, clinical evaluation of laxity, or patient-reported outcomes measures in the short-term postoperatively. Although few RCTs reported specifically in relation to donor site morbidity, current literature suggests that QT autograft may potentially result in significantly lower occurrence of donor site morbidity scoring.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.
METHODS: A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only RCTs of Level I evidence comparing clinical outcomes of ACLR with HT versus QT autografts were included. Descriptive statistics were performed with risk ratios utilized for dichotomous variables and the mean difference (MD) for continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at P-value < .05.
RESULTS: There were 6 RCTs including 374 patients (60% males) with a mean age of 26.7 ± 3.8 years who underwent ACLR with HT (n = 186) or QT (n = 188) autografts. Meta-analysis found there were no significant differences between those who underwent ACLR with either HT or QT autografts with respect to positive pivot-shift testing (risk ratio; 0.42, P = .42) and re-rupture rates (risk ratio; 1.03, P = .96). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the groups for all patient-reported outcome measures, namely International Knee Documentation Committee scores (MD; 0.00, P = .98) and Lysholm scores (MD; -0.21, P = .47) (MD; -0.18, P = .65). However, one study found a significant difference between the HT and QT groups with respect to donor site morbidity scores).
CONCLUSIONS: Current Level I evidence suggests that there is no significant difference between ACLR with HT or QT autografts in re-rupture rates, clinical evaluation of laxity, or patient-reported outcomes measures in the short-term postoperatively. Although few RCTs reported specifically in relation to donor site morbidity, current literature suggests that QT autograft may potentially result in significantly lower occurrence of donor site morbidity scoring.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.