Menu
a) Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone (BPTB) Autograft:
– Composition: Central third of the patellar tendon with bone plugs from the patella and tibial tubercle
– Advantages:
• Strong initial fixation due to bone-to-bone healing
• Rapid incorporation
• High tensile strength
• Suitable for high-demand athletes
– Disadvantages:
• Anterior knee pain
• Risk of patellar fracture
• Potential for quadriceps weakness
• Increased risk of osteoarthritis
b) Hamstring Tendon Autograft:
– Composition: Typically semitendinosus and gracilis tendons
– Advantages:
• Less donor site morbidity
• Smaller incisions
• Reduced anterior knee pain
• Suitable for patients with patellofemoral issues
– Disadvantages:
• Slower graft incorporation
• Potential for hamstring weakness
• Tunnel widening
c) Quadriceps Tendon Autograft:
– Composition: Central portion of the quadriceps tendon, with or without a bone plug
– Advantages:
• Large cross-sectional area
• Good biomechanical properties
• Less donor site morbidity compared to BPTB
– Disadvantages:
• Limited long-term clinical data
• Potential for quadriceps weakness
a) Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Allograft:
– Advantages:
• No donor site morbidity
• Shorter operative time
• Larger graft sizes available
– Disadvantages:
• Risk of disease transmission
• Slower incorporation
• Higher failure rates in young, active patients
b) Soft Tissue Allografts (e.g., Achilles tendon, tibialis anterior/posterior):
– Advantages:
• No donor site morbidity
• Variety of graft sizes available
• Shorter operative time
-Disadvantages:
• Slower incorporation
• Higher failure rates in young, active patients
• Potential for increased laxity over time
– Examples: LARS (Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System), Leeds-Keio artificial ligament
– Advantages:
• No donor site morbidity
• Immediate strength
• Shorter rehabilitation time
– Disadvantages:
• Limited long-term data
• Risk of mechanical failure
• Potential for synovitis and foreign body reaction
1. Patient Age:
– Younger patients (<25 years) may benefit from autografts due to higher activity levels and increased risk of allograft failure
– Older patients may be suitable candidates for allografts due to lower activity demands and potential comorbidities
2. Activity Level:
– High-demand athletes often prefer autografts, particularly BPTB, due to their strength and rapid incorporation
– Recreational athletes or less active individuals may be candidates for allografts or hamstring autografts
3. Previous Injuries or Surgeries:
– Prior hamstring or patellar tendon injuries may influence graft choice
– Revision ACL reconstruction may require alternative graft sources
4. Occupation:
– Patients with occupations requiring kneeling may prefer hamstring or allograft options to avoid anterior knee pain associated with BPTB
5. Surgeon Experience and Preference:
– Familiarity with specific graft harvesting techniques and fixation methods can influence graft selection
6. Patient Preference:
– Some patients may have strong preferences based on personal research or experiences of friends/family
1. Biomechanical Properties:
– BPTB autografts have shown superior initial strength and stiffness compared to hamstring autografts
– Quadriceps tendon autografts demonstrate comparable or superior biomechanical properties to BPTB
– Allografts may have reduced mechanical properties due to sterilization processes
2. Graft Incorporation:
– Autografts generally incorporate faster than allografts
– BPTB autografts show faster incorporation at the bone tunnels compared to soft tissue grafts
3. Donor Site Morbidity:
– BPTB autografts are associated with higher rates of anterior knee pain and kneeling discomfort
– Hamstring autografts may lead to temporary hamstring weakness
– Quadriceps tendon autografts show promising results with less donor site morbidity
– Allografts eliminate donor site morbidity concerns
4. Failure Rates:
– Meta-analyses have shown higher failure rates for allografts compared to autografts, particularly in younger, active patients
– BPTB and hamstring autografts have similar overall failure rates, with some studies favoring BPTB in high-demand athletes
5. Return to Sport:
– BPTB autografts have been associated with slightly faster return to sport times compared to hamstring autografts
– Limited data exists for quadriceps tendon autografts and allografts regarding return to sport timelines
6. Long-term Outcomes:
– BPTB autografts have shown slightly higher rates of osteoarthritis in long-term follow-up studies
– Hamstring autografts may be associated with slightly increased residual laxity
– Long-term data for quadriceps tendon autografts and allografts is still emerging
1. All-Inside Technique:
– Growing interest in all-inside ACL reconstruction using hamstring autografts or allografts
– Potential benefits include reduced surgical morbidity and faster recovery
2. Hybrid Grafts:
– Combination of autograft and allograft tissues to optimize graft properties and minimize donor site morbidity
3. Biological Augmentation:
– Use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or stem cells to enhance graft healing and incorporation
4. Individualized Graft Selection:
– Development of algorithms incorporating patient factors, imaging, and biomechanical data to guide personalized graft choice
5. Improved Allograft Processing:
– Advancements in sterilization techniques to enhance allograft safety and preserve mechanical properties
The choice of graft for ACL reconstruction remains a complex decision influenced by numerous factors. While autografts, particularly BPTB and hamstring tendons, remain the gold standard for many surgeons, quadriceps tendon autografts and allografts offer viable alternatives in specific patient populations. Each graft option presents unique advantages and disadvantages that must be carefully considered in the context of individual patient characteristics, activity levels, and surgical goals.
As research continues to evolve, surgeons must stay informed about the latest evidence and emerging techniques to provide optimal outcomes for their patients. The ideal graft choice should balance biomechanical properties, donor site morbidity, and patient-specific factors to achieve long-term stability, function, and satisfaction following ACL reconstruction.
Ultimately, the decision regarding graft choice should be made through a collaborative discussion between the surgeon and patient, taking into account the patient’s goals, lifestyle, and the surgeon’s experience and expertise. As our understanding of ACL reconstruction continues to advance, we can expect further refinements in graft selection and surgical techniques, leading to improved outcomes for patients undergoing this common orthopedic procedure.
©2025 Dr Frank McCormick All Rights Reserved.
©2025 Dr Frank McCormick All Rights Reserved.
