Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 10, 2026
Athymic Rat Model for Evaluation of Engineered Anterior Cruciate Ligament Grafts
Published on: March 26, 2015
Large-sized grafts versus standard-sized grafts combined with anterolateral ligament reconstruction in ACL-deficient
Mohamed Ali1, Omar Abdelkarim2, Yasser Soroor1
1Department of Orthopedics, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Background:
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are highly prevalent among athletes and continue to pose challenges owing to persistent instability and variable return-to-sport outcomes following reconstruction. Anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction and has been introduced to improve outcomes. Increasing graft diameter was described to enhance biomechanical properties. This study hypothesis was, that ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) combined with ALL reconstruction is superior to a large-sized graft ACL-R.
Purpose:
To compare outcomes of large-sized (six-strand) hamstring grafts with those of standard-sized (four-strand) grafts combined with anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction in ACL-deficient knees.
Methods:
A total of 82 patients (18-45 years) undergoing ACL reconstruction were randomized to either a large (six-strand) hamstring graft group (group A, n = 41) or a standard-sized (four-strand) graft plus ALL reconstruction group (group B, n = 41). Primary outcomes were knee stability (pivot-shift and Lachman tests) and functional scores [Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores]. Secondary measures included pain scores, return to sport, and complication rates, with follow-up at 24 months.
Results:
The mean diameter of the large-sized graft was 9.5 ± 2.5 mm, while the mean diameter of the standard-sized graft was 8.0 ± 2.0 mm. Both groups demonstrated significant gains in stability and function. Lysholm scores improved from 51 to 94 in group A and from 56 to 98 in group B with no significant difference between both groups (p = 0.418), while IKDC scores rose from 37 to 88 and from 37 to 91, respectively and it was significantly higher in group B (p = 0.036). Negative pivot-shift was observed in 87.8% of group A and 90.2% of group B with no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.841). Return-to-sport at 12 months was 93.5% and 96.1%, respectively with no significant difference (p = 1.00). Graft rupture occurred in 4.8% of group A and 2.4% of group B. Overall complications were low and statistically comparable (p = 1.00).
Conclusions:
Both large hamstring grafts and standard grafts augmented with ALL reconstruction provided significant functional and stability improvements, with no major differences between techniques.