Comparison of Graft Type and Fixation Method in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Based on Randomized Control Studies

Abstract

Background: The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is the most commonly injured ligament in the knee. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) proves the standard for treating this injury. However, graft choice and method of fixation remain a heavily debated topic. This study investigates the following: bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) vs. hamstring tendon (HT) autograft, single-bundle vs. double-bundle hamstring graft, and metal vs. bioabsorbable screws in ACLR.

Methods: A systematic review was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were collected on patient demographics, complications, and functionality scores including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with Review Manager. Outcome measurements were determined using forest plots with significant differences considered p < 0.05.

Results: Twenty-five studies were included, accounting for 2,170 patients. No statistically significant difference was appreciated when comparing BPTB to hamstring autografts. Patients who received a double bundle HT autograft exhibited significantly superior outcomes in terms of revision (p = 0.05), failure (p = 0.002), normal pivot shift tests (p = 0.04), and normal IKDC (p = 0.008). When comparing screw types, bioabsorbable screws had a greater Lysholm score (p = 0.01) and lower failure rates for copolymer screws (p = 0.03).

Conclusion: Overall, the data collected suggested that BPTB and HT autografts display similar postoperative results. However, if an HT autograft is used, the data suggest a double-bundle graft improves both functionality and decreases the possible complications. Finally, bioabsorbable screws prove superior to metal screws when looking at both functionality and failure rates. Further research into the superior graft type is still needed.

Level of evidence: Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.