Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using 4-Strand Hamstring Autograft: Conventional Single-Bundle Technique Versus Oval-Footprint Technique

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare short-term results of conventional anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with oval-footprint (modified) single-tunnel ACL reconstruction with 4-strand hamstring autograft.

Methods

A prospective comparative study was performed in 74 consecutive subjects who underwent ACL reconstruction with the conventional technique (group I, 40 cases) or the modified technique (group II, 34 cases), in which the entrances of the femoral and tibial tunnels were more elongated, by use of 4-strand hamstring tendon. The Lachman test, pivot-shift test, range of motion, International Knee Documentation Committee classification, Lysholm score, and side-to-side differences were evaluated preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The Tegner activity scale was evaluated before injury and at the last follow-up.

Results

There were 38 patients in group I and 32 in group II who were followed up for at least 2 years (mean follow-up, 32.4 months). At the last follow-up, Lachman test results were negative in 34 in group I and 30 in group II (P = .624) and the pivot-shift test was negative in 32 in group I and 30 in group II (P = .397). Mean range of motion of the injured knee was 142.2° in group I and 141.9° in group II (P = .771). The International Knee Documentation Committee classification was A or B in 37 in group I and 31 in group II (P = .872). The median Lysholm score was 94 in group I and 96 in group II (P = .048). The mean side-to-side difference averaged 2.08 mm in group I and 2.07 mm in group II (P = .943). The median score on the Tegner activity scale was 6 in group I and 6 in group II (P = .968).

Conclusions

The Lysholm score in the modified-technique group at the last follow-up was better than that in the conventional-technique group in terms of statistical significance, but this may not be clinically significant.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prospective comparative study.