Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes between All-inside and Standard Technique in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with 6-strand Hamstring Tendon Autograft

Abstract

Objective: All-inside and standard techniques with 4-strand hamstrings graft have been widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the graft diameter of less than 8 mm will significantly increase the rate of surgical failure, and the 6-strand graft can solve this problem. The purpose of this study is to compare all-inside ACL reconstruction using suspensory cortical button fixation on both tibia and femur with standard ACL reconstruction using suspensory femoral fixation and a bioabsorbable tibial interference screw with a 6-strand hamstring tendon autograft in postoperative clinical outcomes.

Methods: From January 2020 to December 2020, 48 patients performed ACL reconstruction were divided into the all-side group and the standard group according to the different surgical techniques. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subjective function scores was used to assess clinical outcomes at least 24 months following ACL reconstruction. MRI was used to measure the value of bone tunnel widening in articular and middle portions. Subjective function scores included the Lysholm knee score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) for pain and function, and KT-1000. The t-test was used assuming the distribution of the patients which follows the normal distribution and we used non-parametric tests if these two conditions were not satisfied.

Results: At the final follow-up, there were 22 patients in the all-inside group and 24 patients in the standard group. No significant differences were found with respect to femoral tunnel widening and subjective function scores. However, a significant increase in tibial tunnel widening was found in the middle portion of the standard group (2.25 ± 0.74) compared to the all-inside group (0.76 ± 0.24) (p < 0.01) and also in the articular portion of the standard group (2.07 ± 0.77) compared to the all-inside group (1.52 ± 0.54) (p = 0.02). In addition, the value of the KT-1000 was 1.81 ± 0.45 for the all-inside group and 2.12 ± 0.44 in the standard group (p = 0.016).

Conclusion: The objective stability of the knee was relatively better in the all-inside group than in the standard group. And tunnel widening after ACL reconstruction was significantly greater in the standard technique when compared to the all-inside technique on the tibia side.

Keywords

ACL reconstruction / All-inside / Standard technique / Tunnel widening

References

[1] Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M, Tanaka MJ, Cole BJ, Bach BR, et al. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:2363–2370.

[2] Morgan CD. The all-inside ACL reconstruction. Operative technique manual. Naples, Fla: Arthrex Inc.; 1995.

[3] Lubowitz JH. No-tunnel anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the transtibial all-inside technique. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(8):900.e1–900.e11.

[4] Monaco E, Fabbri M, Redler A, Gaj E, De Carli A, Argento G, et al. 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. 2019 Aug;27:2577–2584.

[5] Mayr R, Smekal V, Koidl C, Coppola C, Fritz J, Rudisch A, et al. Tunnel widening after ACL reconstruction with aperture screw fixation or all-inside reconstruction with suspensory cortical button fixation: volumetric measurements on CT and MRI scans. Knee. 2017;24:1047–1054.

[6] Mayr R, Smekal V, Koidl C, Coppola C, Eichinger M, Rudisch A, et al. ACL reconstruction with adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation results in less tibial tunnel widening compared with interference screw fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28:1036–1044.

[7] Mariscalco MW, Flanigan DC, Mitchell J, Pedroza AD, Jones MH, Andrish JT, et al. 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. 2013;29:1948–1953.

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

[9] Richardson MW, Tsouris ND, Hassan CR, Elbayar JH, Qin YX, Komatsu DE, et al. A biomechanical comparison of alternative graft preparations for all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2019;35:1547–1554.

[10] Urchek R, Karas S. Biomechanical comparison of quadriceps and 6-Strand hamstring tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(10):2325967119879113.

[11] Attia AK, Nasef H, ElSweify KH, Adam MA, AbuShaaban F, Arun K. Failure rates of 5-Strand and 6-Strand vs quadrupled hamstring autograft ACL reconstruction: a comparative study of 413 patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(8):2325967120946326.

[12] Xu Y, Ao Y, Wang J, Yu J, Cui G. Relation of tunnel enlargement and tunnel placement after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2011;27:923–932.

[13] Clatworthy MG, Annear P, Bulow JU, Bartlett RJ. Tunnel widening in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective evaluation of hamstring and patella tendon grafts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7:138–145.

[14] Zysk SP, Fraunberger P, Veihelmann A, Dörger M, Kalteis T, Maier M, et al. Tunnel enlargement and changes in synovial fluid cytokine profile following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004;12:98–103.

[15] Höher J, Möller HD, Fu FH. Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: fact or fiction? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6:231–240.

[16] Fauno P, Kaalund S. Tunnel widening after hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is influenced by the type of graft fixation used: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:1337–1341.

[17] Tsuda E, Fukuda Y, Loh JC, Debski RE, Fu FH, Woo SL. The effect of soft-tissue graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the graft-tunnel motion under anterior tibial loading. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:960–967.

[18] Rodeo SA, Kawamura S, Kim HJ, Dynybil C, Ying L. 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. 2006;34:1790–1800.

[19] Kim SG, Kurosawa H, Sakuraba K, Ikeda H, Takazawa S, Takazawa Y. Development and application of an inside-to-out drill bit for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:1012–1012.e4.

[20] McAdams TR, Biswal S, Stevens KJ, Beaulieu CF, Mandelbaum BR. Tibial aperture bone disruption after retrograde versus antegrade tibial tunnel drilling: a cadaveric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16:818–822.

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

[22] Osti M, Krawinkel A, Hoffelner T, Benedetto KP. Quantification of tibial bone loss in antegrade versus retrograde tunnel placement for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2015;39:1611–1614.

[23] Lubowitz JH, Konicek J. Anterior cruciate ligament femoral tunnel length: cadaveric analysis comparing anteromedial portal versus outside-in technique. Arthroscopy. 2010;26:1357–1362.

[24] Lubowitz JH, Akhavan S, Waterman BR, Aalami-Harandi A, Konicek J. Technique for creating the anterior cruciate ligament femoral socket: optimizing femoral footprint anatomic restoration using outside-in drilling. Arthroscopy. 2013;29:522–528.

[25] Geeslin AG, Jansson KS, Wijdicks CA, Chapman MA, Fok AS, LaPrade RF. Tibial tunnel aperture irregularity after drilling with 5 reamer designs: a qualitative micro-computed tomography analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:825–831.

[26] Smith PA, Schwartzberg RS, Lubowitz JH. No tunnel 2-socket technique: all-inside anterior cruciate ligament double-bundle retroconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(10):1184–1189.

[27] Berg EE, Pollard ME, Kang Q. Interarticular bone tunnel healing. Arthroscopy. 2001;17:189–195.

[28] Smith PA, Piepenbrink M, Smith SK, Bachmaier S, Bedi A, Wijdicks CA. Adjustable- versus fixed-loop devices for femoral fixation in ACL reconstruction: an in vitro full-construct biomechanical study of surgical technique-based Tibial fixation and graft preparation. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(4):2325967118768743.

[29] Nye DD, Mitchell WR, Liu W, Ostrander RV. Biomechanical comparison of fixed-loop and adjustable-loop cortical suspensory devices for metaphyseal femoral-sided soft tissue graft fixation in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a porcine model. Art Ther. 2017;33:1225–1232.e1.

[30] Smith PA, DeBerardino TM. Tibial fixation properties of a continuous-loop ACL hamstring graft construct with suspensory fixation in porcine bone. J Knee Surg. 2015;28:506–512.

[31] Buelow JU, Siebold R, Ellermann A. A prospective evaluation of tunnel enlargement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings: extracortical versus anatomical fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002;10:80–85.

[32] Wang JH, Lee ES, Lee BH. Paradoxical tunnel enlargement after ACL reconstruction with hamstring autografts when using β-TCP containing interference screws for tibial aperture fixation-prospectively comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:398.

[33] Goyal T, Das L, Paul S, Choudhury AK, Sethy SS. Outcomes of retro-drilled all-inside tibial tunnel vs complete tibial tunnel techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-a comparative study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022;32(3):523–532.

[34] Kulshrestha V, Sood M, Kumar S, Kawale A. Original study: early patient-reported functional outcome of all-inside ACL reconstruction as compared to anteromedial portal technique. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021;31(7):1477–1483.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.