Peroneus Longus Tendon Autograft May Present a Viable Alternative for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the available literature to better understand the objective and patient-reported outcomes using peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autograft compared with more commonly used autografts, such as the quadrupled hamstring tendons (HT), in patients undergoing primary for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Methods: A comprehensive search of published literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and EMBASE databases was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria included patients undergoing ACLR with PLT autograft, inclusion of patient-recorded outcome measures, and availability in English language. Publications that included only biomechanical analysis or ACLR with use of allograft or combination grafts were excluded.

Results: A total of 16 studies (Level of Evidence range: I-IV) met inclusion criteria, with follow-up ranging from 3 months to 5 years. In the available case series, patient-reported outcomes ranged from Lysholm = 80.7 to 95.1, International Knee Documentation Committee 78.1 to 95.7. In prospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials, PLT performance was comparable with HT autografts (PLT/HT: Lysholm = 88.3-95.1/86.5-94.9, International Knee Documentation Committee = 78.2-92.5/87.4-93.4). The majority of PLT grafts diameters were equal or greater than HT counterparts with a mean of >8 mm (PLT/HT: 7.0-9.0 mm/7.65-8.5 mm). There was minimal donor-site morbidity associated with PLT harvest.

Conclusions: Although limitations exist within the available literature, existing evidence suggests that PLT autograft routinely produces adequately sized grafts with comparable early outcomes to HT autograft and low risk of donor-site morbidity. However, the PLT autograft is yet to demonstrate superiority to any of the more-traditional autograft selections.

Level of evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.