Biomechanical Properties of Small-Size Hamstring Autografts

Purpose To evaluate small-size hamstring (HS) autografts for biomechanical properties and determine a threshold diameter necessary for appropriate reconstruction. Methods In a controlled laboratory setting, biomechanical testing was performed upon 15 hamstring autografts. The grafts were divided into three groups by diameter, with five grafts each at diameter sizes of 6, 7, and 8 mm. Testing of the specimens was performed using an MTS 858 (Materials Testing System, Eden Prairie, MN). We determined load to failure by looking at the maximum load as well as the stiffness of the graft. Statistical analysis was performed via analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing with Tukey's post-hoc test and P-values set at 0.05. Results There was a significant difference in ultimate tensile strength for the different size grafts: 1990 +/- 302.42 N for 6 mm grafts (n=5), 2179 +/- 685.36 N for the 7 mm grafts (n=5), and 3074 +/- 781 N for 8 mm grafts (n=5). This was statistically significant for the group overall (p=0.039), as well as between the 6 mm and 8 mm grafts (p=0.044). Graft stiffness for the 6 mm grafts was 317 +/- 85 N (n=5), 288.6 +/- 66 for 7 mm grafts (n=5), and 428.053 +/- 83 for 8 mm grafts (n=5). This achieved statistical significance for the group overall (p =0.037) as well as between the 8 mm and 7 mm grafts. Conclusions The biomechanical data presented here demonstrate that graft diameter is highly correlated with ultimate tensile strength and stiffness. Clinical relevance When viewing this biomechanical data in conjunction with prior clinical data, consideration should be given for the supplementation of an HS autograft as the size decreases below 8 mm.

[1]  Dean C Taylor,et al.  Graft size and patient age are predictors of early revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft. , 2012, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[2]  Freddie H. Fu,et al.  Can pre-operative measures predict quadruple hamstring graft diameter? , 2010, The Knee.

[3]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  The Scandinavian ACL registries 2004–2007: baseline epidemiology , 2009, Acta orthopaedica.

[4]  K. Shelbourne,et al.  Incidence of Subsequent Injury to Either Knee within 5 Years after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Patellar Tendon Autograft , 2009, The American journal of sports medicine.

[5]  M. Lind,et al.  The first results from the Danish ACL reconstruction registry: epidemiologic and 2 year follow-up results from 5,818 knee ligament reconstructions , 2009, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[6]  T. Fowler,et al.  Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging cross-sectional area for the measurement of hamstring autograft diameter for reconstruction of the adolescent anterior cruciate ligament. , 2008, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[7]  B. Bach,et al.  An illustrated history of anterior cruciate ligament surgery. , 2010, The journal of knee surgery.

[8]  J. Hart,et al.  Predictors for Hamstring Graft Diameter in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2007, The American journal of sports medicine.

[9]  J. Bullock-Saxton,et al.  A 6-Year Follow-up of the Effect of Graft Site on Strength, Stability, Range of Motion, Function, and Joint Degeneration after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2007, The American journal of sports medicine.

[10]  W. Dunn,et al.  Current Concepts Review: Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2006, The American journal of sports medicine.

[11]  K. Sakuraba,et al.  Analysis of the risk factors regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using multiple-looped semitendinosus tendon. , 2005, The Knee.

[12]  I. M. Al-Kussary,et al.  Clinical evaluation of arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: patellar tendon versus gracilis and semitendinosus autograft. , 2005, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[13]  F. Giron,et al.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis tendon graft directly fixed to cortical bone: 5-year results , 2005, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[14]  B. Bach,et al.  Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with nonirradiated fresh-frozen patellar tendon allograft. , 2004, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[15]  G. Barrett,et al.  Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in females: A comparison of hamstring versus patellar tendon autograft. , 2002, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[16]  T. Rosenberg,et al.  Quadrupled semitendinosus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 5-year results in patients without meniscus loss. , 2001, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[17]  F R Noyes,et al.  Revision Anterior Cruciate Surgery with Use of Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autogenous Grafts , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  B. Bach,et al.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in men and women: An outcome analysis comparing gender. , 2001, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[19]  G. Barrett,et al.  Clinical Comparison of Intraarticular Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Autogenous Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendons in Men versus Women * , 2000, The American journal of sports medicine.

[20]  Charles H. Brown,et al.  Hamstring tendon grafts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: biomechanical evaluation of the use of multiple strands and tensioning techniques. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  M. Zobitz,et al.  A Biomechanical Analysis of Matched Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone and Double-Looped Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendon Grafts , 1999, The American journal of sports medicine.

[22]  M. Andrews,et al.  A Rigorous Comparison Between the Sexes of Results and Complications After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 1997, The American journal of sports medicine.

[23]  M. Hull,et al.  In vivo tensile behavior of a four‐bundle hamstring graft as a replacement for the anterior cruciate ligament , 1997, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[24]  K. Shino,et al.  Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Multistranded Autogenous Semitendinosus Tendon , 1996, The American journal of sports medicine.

[25]  Charles H. Brown,et al.  Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Fixation , 1994, The American journal of sports medicine.

[26]  R. Warren,et al.  Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel. A biomechanical and histological study in the dog. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[27]  S. Woo,et al.  Tensile properties of the human femur-anterior cruciate ligament-tibia complex , 1991, The American journal of sports medicine.

[28]  F. Noyes,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of human ligament grafts used in knee-ligament repairs and reconstructions. , 1984, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.