Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament with a Ligament-advanced Reinforcement System and Hamstring Tendon Autograft: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Objective

Both ligament-advanced reinforcement system (LARS) and hamstring tendon autograft can serve as grafts for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. However, few studies have compared the effectiveness of these two approaches. This study therefore aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of arthroscopic reconstruction of the PCL using either the LARS or hamstring tendon autograft.

Methods

A total of 36 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed. Within this cohort, 15 patients received a reconstruction using the LARS (LARS group) and 21 using the hamstring tendon autograft (HT group).

Results

The pre- and post-operative subjective scores and knee stability were evaluated and the patients were followed up for a period of 2 to 10.5 years (4.11±2.0 years on average). The last follow-up showed that functional scores and knee stability were significantly improved in both groups (P<0.05). Six months after operation, Lysholm scores and IKDC subjective scores were higher in the LARS group than in the HT group (P<0.05). Nonetheless, the last follow-up showed no significant differences in the functional scores or the posterior drawer test between the two groups (P>0.05). In the LARS and HT groups, 12 and 9 patients, respectively exhibited KT1000 values <3 mm, with the difference being statistically significant (P<0.05). In the HT group, the diameter of the four-strand hamstring tendon was positively correlated with height (P<0.05), which was 7.37±0.52 mm in males and 6.50±0.77 mm in females (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Both LARS and hamstring tendon approaches achieved good efficacy for PCL reconstruction, but patients in the LARS group exhibited faster functional recovery and better knee stability in the long term. LARS is especially suitable for those who hope to resume activities as early as possible.

Keywords

posterior cruciate ligament / ligament-advanced reinforcement system / hamstring tendon / reconstruction

References

[1] FanelliGC, EdsonCJ. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in trauma patients: Part II. Arthroscopy, 1995, 11(5): 526-529

[2] FanelliGC, BeckJD, EdsonCJ. Current concepts review: the posterior cruciate ligament. J Knee Surg, 2010, 23(2): 61-72

[3] PanigrahiR, KumariM A, PriyadarshiA, et al.. Outcome of Simultaneous Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Autograft: A Multicenter Prospective Study. Asian J Sports Med, 2016, 7(1): e29287

[4] SunK, ZhangJ, WangY, et al.. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstring tendon autograft and fresh-frozen allograft: a prospective, randomized controlled study. Am J Sports Med, 2011, 39(7): 1430-1438

[5] ChenCP, LinYM, ChiuYC, et al.. Outcomes of arthroscopic double-bundle PCL reconstruction using the LARS artificial ligament. Orthopedics, 2012, 35(6): e800-806

[6] GliatisJ, AnagnostouK, TsoumposP, et al.. Complex knee injuries treated in acute phase: Long-term results using Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System artificial ligament. World J Orthop, 2018, 9(3): 24-34

[7] SaragagliaD, FranconyF, GaillotJ, et al.. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for chronic lesions: clinical experience with hamstring versus ligament advanced reinforcement system as graft. Internat Orthop, 2020, 44(1): 179-185

[8] Canale ST, Beaty HJ. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. Elsevier, Singapore; 2008.

[9] LysholmJ, GillquistJ. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med, 1982, 10(3): 150-154

[10] AndersonAF, IrrgangJJ, KocherMS, et al.. The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form: normative data. Am J Sports Med, 2006, 34(1): 128-135

[11] TegnerY, LysholmJ. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 198543-49

[12] XuX, HuangT, LiuZ, et al.. Hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a long-term follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2014, 134(12): 1753-1759

[13] Mardani-KiviM, Karimi-MobarakehM, Keyhani S, et al.. Hamstring tendon autograft versus fresh-frozen tibialis posterior allograft in primary arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study with three to six years follow-up. Int Orthop, 2016, 40(9): 1905-1911

[14] RaiS, JinSY, RaiB, et al.. A Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACL-R) Using Hamstring Tendon Autograft and Tibialis Anterior Tendon Allograft: A Comparative Study. Curr Med Sci, 2018, 38(5): 818-826

[15] JungYB, TaeSK, LeeYS, et al.. Active non-operative treatment of acute isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury with cylinder cast immobilization. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2008, 16(8): 729-733

[16] GaoK, ChenS, WangL, et al.. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS artificial ligament: a multicenter study with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy, 2010, 26(4): 515-523

[17] AhnJH, WangJH, LeeYS, et al.. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using remnant preservation and a femoral tensioning technique: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging results. Arthroscopy, 2011, 27(8): 1079-1089

[18] LiB, WenY, WuH, et al.. Arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: retrospective review of hamstring tendon graft versus LARS artificial ligament. Internat Orthop, 2009, 33(4): 991-996

[19] JanssenRP, SchefflerSU. Intra-articular remodelling of hamstring tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2014, 22(9): 2102-2108

[20] MarumoK, SaitoM, YamagishiT, et al.. The “ligamentization” process in human anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar and hamstring tendons: a biochemical study. Am J Sports Med, 2005, 33(8): 1166-1173

[21] GirgisFG, MarshallJL, MonajemA. The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1975216-231

[22] TaoC, HeA, WangW. Anatomy and clinical value of the posterior cruciate ligament of knee joint. Chin J Clin Anat (Chinese), 2007, 25(02): 176-178

[23] ChenL, YuJ, AoY, et al.. Morphological Measurement of PCL Insertion and Optimized Tunnel Diameter for PCL Reconstruction. Chin J Sports Med (Chinese), 2011, 30(10): 911-915, 947

[24] LiB, WangJS, HeM, et al.. Comparison of hamstring tendon autograft and tibialis anterior allograft in arthroscopic transtibial single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2015, 23(10): 3077-3084

[25] ConteEJ, HyattAE, GattCJ, et al.. Hamstring autograft size can be predicted and is a potential risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure. Arthroscopy, 2014, 30(7): 882-890

[26] BianchiN, SacchettiF, BottaiV, et al.. LARS versus hamstring tendon autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a single-centre, single surgeon retrospective study with 8 years of follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2019, 29(2): 447-453

[27] LIY, ZhangH, XiaoS, et al.. Effectiveness comparison of LARS artificial ligament and autogenous hamstring tendon in one-stage reconstruction of anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi (Chinese), 2020, 34(5): 1-7

[28] BrunetP, CharroisO, DegeorgesR, et al.. Reconstruction of acute posterior cruciate ligament tears using a synthetic ligament. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot (French), 2005, 91(1): 34-43

[29] ChiangLY, LeeCH, TongKM, et al.. Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction implemented by the Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System over a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Knee, 2020, 27(1): 165-172

[30] SunJ, WeiXC, LiL, et al.. Autografts vs Synthetics for Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Orthop Surg, 2020, 12(2): 378-387