Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2025
Athymic Rat Model for Evaluation of Engineered Anterior Cruciate Ligament Grafts
Published on: March 26, 2015
Harvesting a second graft from the extensor mechanism for revision ACL reconstruction does not delay return of
Joshua C Setliff1, Christopher M Gibbs2, Volker Musahl2
1School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 3200 S Water St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15203, USA. setliffjc@upmc.edu.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether harvesting a second graft from the ipsilateral extensor mechanism adversely affects clinical outcomes in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
Methods:
A retrospective review of 34 patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with either quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft or bone-tendon-bone (BTB) autograft was conducted. Patients with two grafts (BTB+QT) from the extensor mechanism were matched based on age, laterality, and sex to patients who had primary reconstruction with hamstring (HS) autograft followed by revision with either BTB or QT autograft (HS+QT/BTB). Return of quadriceps function was assessed with time to return to jogging in a standardized rehab protocol or time to regain 80% quadriceps strength. Secondary outcomes included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Marx scores at 12-month follow-up and return to sport.
Results:
There were no significant differences in return to jogging or 80% quadriceps strength (HS 149.5 ± 38.2 days, BTB+QT 131.7 ± 40.1 days, n.s.), number able to return to sport (HS 62%, BTB+QT 93%, n.s.), months to return to sport (HS 10.6 ± 1.4, BTB+QT 10.5 ± 2.3, n.s.), return to pre-injury level of competition (HS 62%, BTB+QT 73%, n.s.), or IKDC (HS 77.2 ± 16.4, BTB+QT 74.8 ± 23.9, n.s.) and Marx scores (HS 9.2 ± 5.3, BTB+QT 8.0 ± 3.7, n.s.) at one-year follow-up.
Conclusion:
The main finding of the present study was that outcomes for patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with a second extensor mechanism autograft were comparable to those seen for patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with extensor mechanism autograft after primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft. By better understanding the consequences of harvesting a second graft from the extensor mechanism, surgeons can better decide what graft to use in revision ACL reconstruction.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III.
More Related Videos
05:07Author Spotlight: Implementing the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Concept in Rehabilitation Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Published on: March 1, 2024
08:30Surgical Retrieval, Isolation and In vitro Expansion of Human Anterior Cruciate Ligament-derived Cells for Tissue Engineering Applications
Published on: April 30, 2014