Abstract
There is increasing evidence that patients with ACL reconstruction using ipsilateral graft harvest are at greater risk of rupture (12.5%) on their contralateral compared to their surgical side (7.9%). The purpose of this study is to re-evaluate patients from a previous study comparing ipsi- versus contralateral graft harvest to compare ACL rupture rate at a minimum 10 year follow-up.
An attempt to contact all participants from a previously published study was made to invite them to return for a follow-up. The assessment included an International Knee Documentation Committee Knee Clinical Assessment (IKDC), isokinetic concentric knee flexion and extension strength testing, as well as the ACL-Quality of life (ACL-QOL). A chart review was conducted to identify or confirm subsequent ipsi- or contralateral knee surgeries.
In patients with ipsilateral graft, 3/34 (8.8%) re-ruptured and 3/34 (8.8%) had contralateral rupture. In the contralateral group, 1/28 (3.6%) re-ruptured and 2/28 (7.1%) had contralateral rupture. The relative risk (RR) of re-rupture with ipsilateral graft was 2.47 compared to using the contralateral site (p=0.42). RR of rupture on the contralateral side when ipsilateral graft was used was 1.23 compared to the alternate approach. Current contact information was unavailable for 21 patients. Of the 47 remaining, 37 were consented (79%). No difference in the ACL-QOL between groups (ipsilateral 68.4±24.4, contralateral 80.1±16.0, p=0.17) was observed. There were no differences in knee flexion strength between groups (peak torque flexion affected leg: ipsilateral 77.8nm/kg±27.4, contralateral: 90.0 nm/kg±35.1; p=0.32; Unaffected leg: ipsilateral: 83.3 nm/kg±30.2 contralateral 81.7 nm/kg±24.4; p= 0.89).
This study suggests that using the contralateral hamstring in ACL rupture is not associated with an increase in ACL rupture on either side. The risk of ACL injury was low in all limbs; therefore, a larger study would be required to definitively state that graft side had no impact.
