Uncovering the State of Current Data on Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Use Versus Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone and Hamstring Tendon Autografts in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction at ≥5 Years After Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Sarah C. Kurkowski, Michael J. Thimmesch, Meredith Murphy, Henry A. Kuechly, Andrew S. Emmert, Brian Grawe
{"title":"Uncovering the State of Current Data on Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Use Versus Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone and Hamstring Tendon Autografts in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction at ≥5 Years After Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"Sarah C. Kurkowski, Michael J. Thimmesch, Meredith Murphy, Henry A. Kuechly, Andrew S. Emmert, Brian Grawe","doi":"10.1177/03635465241266628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:The use of quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been increasing since 2014. Studies have shown that QT is comparable to hamstring tendon (HT) and bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autografts in terms of outcomes, although QT autograft has lower rates of donor site morbidity. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been previously conducted on this topic, although none have focused solely on data of patients at least 5 years out from surgery.Hypothesis/Purpose:The purpose of this meta-analysis was to demonstrate that QT may not be superior to BTB and HT autografts and that long-term studies must be performed before recommending QT over other graft choices. It was hypothesized that there would be less available data at ≥5 years of follow-up for patients with QT than those with HT and BTB autografts, and that patient-reported outcomes would be similar between all 3 graft choices.Study Design:Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:The PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus (Elsevier), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies that reported on QT, BTB, or HT outcomes at ≥5 years after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). In total, 27 studies were included; patient and outcome data were collected from each. Summary odds ratios were calculated for each outcome and compared between all graft types.Results:The sheer volume of available patient data on QT autografts at ≥5 years after ACLR is vastly different from what is available on HT and BTB autografts (which have almost 3 times the amount of patient data as compared with QT). HT had the highest failure rate (12.7%), followed by QT (9.1%) and BTB (6.4%); summary odds ratios favored BTB over both QT and HT in terms of failure rate. Patient-reported outcomes were comparable between graft types, although some comparisons were not adequately powered.Conclusion:This meta-analysis reveals critical information on the current state of the literature surrounding QT use in ACLR. Most notably, additional mid-term and long-term patient data are needed on those undergoing ACLR with QT autograft. There is not enough long-term outcome data on QT to recommend it over HT or BTB for primary ACLR.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241266628","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:The use of quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been increasing since 2014. Studies have shown that QT is comparable to hamstring tendon (HT) and bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autografts in terms of outcomes, although QT autograft has lower rates of donor site morbidity. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been previously conducted on this topic, although none have focused solely on data of patients at least 5 years out from surgery.Hypothesis/Purpose:The purpose of this meta-analysis was to demonstrate that QT may not be superior to BTB and HT autografts and that long-term studies must be performed before recommending QT over other graft choices. It was hypothesized that there would be less available data at ≥5 years of follow-up for patients with QT than those with HT and BTB autografts, and that patient-reported outcomes would be similar between all 3 graft choices.Study Design:Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:The PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus (Elsevier), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies that reported on QT, BTB, or HT outcomes at ≥5 years after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). In total, 27 studies were included; patient and outcome data were collected from each. Summary odds ratios were calculated for each outcome and compared between all graft types.Results:The sheer volume of available patient data on QT autografts at ≥5 years after ACLR is vastly different from what is available on HT and BTB autografts (which have almost 3 times the amount of patient data as compared with QT). HT had the highest failure rate (12.7%), followed by QT (9.1%) and BTB (6.4%); summary odds ratios favored BTB over both QT and HT in terms of failure rate. Patient-reported outcomes were comparable between graft types, although some comparisons were not adequately powered.Conclusion:This meta-analysis reveals critical information on the current state of the literature surrounding QT use in ACLR. Most notably, additional mid-term and long-term patient data are needed on those undergoing ACLR with QT autograft. There is not enough long-term outcome data on QT to recommend it over HT or BTB for primary ACLR.
四头肌肌腱自体移植物与骨-髌肌腱-骨和腿筋肌腱自体移植物在手术后5年以上重建前交叉韧带的现状:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景:自2014年以来,使用股四头肌腱(QT)自体移植物重建前交叉韧带(ACL)的情况越来越多。研究表明,尽管QT自体移植的供体部位发病率较低,但就结果而言,QT与腘肌腱(HT)和骨-髌骨肌腱-骨(BTB)自体移植相当。系统综述和荟萃分析已经在此主题上进行过,尽管没有一个单独关注手术后至少5年患者的数据。假设/目的:本荟萃分析的目的是证明QT移植可能并不优于BTB和HT自体移植,在推荐QT移植优于其他移植选择之前必须进行长期研究。假设QT患者随访≥5年的可用数据少于HT和BTB自体移植患者,并且患者报告的结果在所有3种移植选择之间相似。研究设计:荟萃分析;证据等级,4级。方法:检索PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus (Elsevier)、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,查询ACL重建(ACLR)后≥5年报告QT、BTB或HT结果的研究。总共纳入了27项研究;分别收集患者和结果数据。计算每个结果的总优势比,并比较所有移植类型之间的优势比。结果:ACLR术后≥5年QT自体移植患者数据的绝对数量与HT和BTB自体移植患者数据的绝对数量有很大不同(两者的患者数据几乎是QT的3倍)。HT失败率最高(12.7%),其次为QT(9.1%)和BTB (6.4%);就失败率而言,BTB优于QT和HT。患者报告的结果在不同移植物类型之间具有可比性,尽管有些比较没有充分的支持。结论:本荟萃分析揭示了ACLR中QT使用文献现状的关键信息。最值得注意的是,需要额外的中期和长期的ACLR患者的QT自体移植数据。没有足够的长期结果数据来推荐QT而不是HT或BTB治疗原发性ACLR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信