The Posteromedial Approach for Harvesting Hamstring Autografts Results in Fewer Incidents of Saphenous Nerve Injury Compared to the Conventional Anteromedial Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Background: The hamstring autograft can be harvested using various skin incisions, such as vertical, transverse, and oblique incisions, and from different localizations, including anteromedial and posteromedial harvest sites. The aim of this study was to compare studies on the anteromedial and posteromedial approaches for hamstring autograft harvest in terms of clinical outcomes, saphenous nerve injury, infection, operative time, graft length, incision length, range of motion, and patient satisfaction.

Methods: Following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus, focusing on studies comparing anteromedial and posterior approaches for hamstring harvest. This study was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023450249). Methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) quantified dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

Results: Five articles, involving 405 knees, underwent analysis. Four studies were level 3 evidence, while 1 was level 1. The anteromedial hamstring harvest showed higher rates of saphenous nerve injury (OR, 9.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.19-43.65; p = 0.003) and longer operative times, with an MD of about 13 minutes (MD, 13.33; 95% CI, 0.68-25.97; p = 0.04), compared to the posteromedial approach. The anteromedial method yielded a longer semitendinosus graft, with an MD of about 17 mm (MD, 17.57; 95% CI, 7.17-27.98; p = 0.0009). However, no significant differences existed in range of motion, flexion contracture, unintentional graft harvest, infection rates, and patient-reported outcomes. Notably, the posteromedial group reported higher cosmetic satisfaction, with 92% being very satisfied, compared to the anteromedial group with 80% (p = 0.005). However, overall satisfaction levels were similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.35), with a very satisfied rate of 72% for the anteromedial group and 78% for the posteromedial group.

Conclusions: The anteromedial hamstring harvest showed greater saphenous nerve injury and longer operative times compared to the posteromedial approach, along with a longer graft. However, no significant differences were observed in the range of motion, flexion contracture, graft harvest, infection, or patient outcomes.