Reduced Knee Flexion Strength 18 Years After ACL Reconstruction in Hamstring Group Compared to Patellar Tendon Group
NCT ID: NCT05876013
Last Updated: 2025-06-06
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Total Enrollment
114 participants
Study Classification
OBSERVATIONAL
Study Start Date
2022-03-14
Study Completion Date
2022-10-07
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Background: Bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) and a double-looped semitendinosus gracilis (hamstring group) graft are commonly used for ACL reconstruction. Short-term and mid-term studies show little to no significant difference between the two groups, and there are a few long term studies to compare results between the two grafts.
Purpose: To compare the results after using either BPTB grafts or hamstring grafts 18 years after ACL reconstruction.
Study design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence II. Methods: 114 patients with ACL rupture between 2001 and 2004 were randomized to reconstruction with either BPTB graft or a hamstring graft. Patients were operated at four major hospitals. The 18-year follow-up evaluation included isokinetic testing of muscle strength, patient-reported outcome measures, clinical knee examination and an assessment of radiological osteoarthritis using the Kellgren-Lawrence classification.
Hypothesis:Hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the long-term outcome between the two groups, as well hypothesis of no difference in patients with prosthesis after ACL reconstruction, arthrosis difference in operated knees and the rate of graft failure between the two groups. Previous follow-up studies showed a significant difference in total flexion work between the two groups, so detecting a persistent difference between the groups will be point of interest.
Purpose: To compare the results after using either BPTB grafts or hamstring grafts 18 years after ACL reconstruction.
Study design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence II. Methods: 114 patients with ACL rupture between 2001 and 2004 were randomized to reconstruction with either BPTB graft or a hamstring graft. Patients were operated at four major hospitals. The 18-year follow-up evaluation included isokinetic testing of muscle strength, patient-reported outcome measures, clinical knee examination and an assessment of radiological osteoarthritis using the Kellgren-Lawrence classification.
Hypothesis:Hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the long-term outcome between the two groups, as well hypothesis of no difference in patients with prosthesis after ACL reconstruction, arthrosis difference in operated knees and the rate of graft failure between the two groups. Previous follow-up studies showed a significant difference in total flexion work between the two groups, so detecting a persistent difference between the groups will be point of interest.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Anterior Cruciate Ligament-reconstruction: Quadriceps Tendon or Hamstrings Tendon? A Prospective Trial
NCT02173483
Ligament; Laxity, Knee
Rupture of Anterior Cruciate Ligament
COMPLETED
NA
Hamstring Muscle Strength After ACL Hamstring Reconstruction
NCT05464485
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture
COMPLETED
Number One Overall Graft Pick? Hamstring vs Bone-Patellar-Tendon-Bone vs Quadriceps Tendon
NCT03671421
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Changes in Muscle Morphology Resulting From Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
NCT01537588
Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture
COMPLETED
NA
The Best Method for ACL Reconstruction.
NCT03192761
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
UNKNOWN
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Introduction Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common soft-tissue knee injury, and has increased in number over the last twenty years. Reconstructing the ligament may be important for maintaining the stability and preventing further damaging of the knee. The two most commonly used grafts in reconstructions are the autologous patellar tendon grafts and hamstring tendon grafts There is yet to be a universally established agreement regarding which reconstruction method of an ACL is preferred. The method using the central third of the patellar tendon with proximal and distal bone blocks as the replacement has been used since the late 80s and is well documented with good results. When the technique using the hamstring tendon grafts was introduced, its popularity increased. Arguments favoring each of the methods depend on which variables one values the most. In some studies, the patellar tendon group reported problems regarding anterior knee pain and decreased sensitivity of the knee, whereas for the hamstring tendon group there was reported increased weakness of the hamstring muscles and knee laxity. However, the overall assessment and satisfaction in multiple short-term/semi-long studies have shown little to no difference .
The aim of this prospective randomized multicenter study is to compare the use of bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) grafts and double-looped semitendinosus gracilis (DLSG) grafts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament, 17-20 years after the surgery. The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant differences at this long-term follow-up evaluation between the two methods.
Method and material of the first study- Drogset et al. recruited 115 patients with rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament in the period of 2001-2004, and randomized them to either reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) grafts fixed with metal interference screw graft, or double-looped semitendinosus gracilis (DLSG) grafts fixed with Bone Mulch Screws and WasherLoc Screws. The surgeries were performed at four different hospitals.
After one and two years, the patients were examined by an independent observer, using a series of objective tests, as well as recording the patients' subjective opinion of their knee function. The subjective tests used were Tegner's activity score, Lysholm's functional score and Modified Cincinnati Score. The objective tests used were Lachmann's test, pivot shift and KT-1000, as well as Cybex and Biodex to measure muscle strength.
Method and material- The present study is a long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized multicenter study. The patient recorded outcome scores will be Tegner's activity score, Lysholms's functional score and the Knee injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). The examinations include Lachmann's test, pivot shift and KT-1000. We also plan to include radiographs to evaluate the degree of arthrosis 17-20 years after the surgery, and Cybex or Biodex to examine the hamstring and quadriceps strength. The radiographic positioning will be knee AP weight-bearing standing bilateral and lateral view, as well as skyline projection. The Kellgren-Lawrence classification will be used to assess the degree of osteoarthritis.
Even though 115 patients were included in the original study, we will only attempt to contact 114 due to lost inclusion-papers between the 2-year and 7-year follow-up \[8\]. During the spring of 2022, the patients will receive an invite to participate in the follow-up study. Following this, patients will be contacted to uncover different circumstances that might exclude certain patients from the clinical assessment. This includes revision of the reconstruction in question, total knee replacement or total knee arthroplasty, and if the knee had been injured beforehand. The clinical examination will be carried out by both a medical student and an experienced orthopedic surgeon. Hopefully all the patients will be examined over the course of two days at each location, and if needed, the rest will be examined at a later date.
Hypothesis- Current hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the long-term outcome between the two groups. However, it will be interesting to see how many patients have received a prosthesis, and how many patients struggle with arthrosis. As the previous follow-up studies showed a significant difference in total flexion work between the two groups, we will be interested in detecting a persistent difference between the groups.
Another interesting aspect will be the rate of graft failure between the two groups.
Feasibility- The strength of the study is the randomization and the long follow-up period of 17-20 years. The possible limitations are the fact that there may be a problem recruiting enough patients to the follow-up, and that it might not be able to get x-rays of the patients at the different hospitals, as this is a matter of cost and availability. In addition, the different hospitals may not have a Biodex available.
Publicity plan- The goal for the paper is to be published in an international journal and probably be presented at conferences. For article, that hopefully will be published in journals, Marko Popovic will stand as first author, and Julie Holen and Julie Myhre as contributing authors. Jon Olav Drogset will be listed last, as the main supervisor.
Ethics- The REK-application was submitted on the 24th of December 2021. Application number: 391796. Additionally, the project will be reported to NSD when the REK-application is approved.
The aim of this prospective randomized multicenter study is to compare the use of bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) grafts and double-looped semitendinosus gracilis (DLSG) grafts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament, 17-20 years after the surgery. The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant differences at this long-term follow-up evaluation between the two methods.
Method and material of the first study- Drogset et al. recruited 115 patients with rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament in the period of 2001-2004, and randomized them to either reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) grafts fixed with metal interference screw graft, or double-looped semitendinosus gracilis (DLSG) grafts fixed with Bone Mulch Screws and WasherLoc Screws. The surgeries were performed at four different hospitals.
After one and two years, the patients were examined by an independent observer, using a series of objective tests, as well as recording the patients' subjective opinion of their knee function. The subjective tests used were Tegner's activity score, Lysholm's functional score and Modified Cincinnati Score. The objective tests used were Lachmann's test, pivot shift and KT-1000, as well as Cybex and Biodex to measure muscle strength.
Method and material- The present study is a long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized multicenter study. The patient recorded outcome scores will be Tegner's activity score, Lysholms's functional score and the Knee injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). The examinations include Lachmann's test, pivot shift and KT-1000. We also plan to include radiographs to evaluate the degree of arthrosis 17-20 years after the surgery, and Cybex or Biodex to examine the hamstring and quadriceps strength. The radiographic positioning will be knee AP weight-bearing standing bilateral and lateral view, as well as skyline projection. The Kellgren-Lawrence classification will be used to assess the degree of osteoarthritis.
Even though 115 patients were included in the original study, we will only attempt to contact 114 due to lost inclusion-papers between the 2-year and 7-year follow-up \[8\]. During the spring of 2022, the patients will receive an invite to participate in the follow-up study. Following this, patients will be contacted to uncover different circumstances that might exclude certain patients from the clinical assessment. This includes revision of the reconstruction in question, total knee replacement or total knee arthroplasty, and if the knee had been injured beforehand. The clinical examination will be carried out by both a medical student and an experienced orthopedic surgeon. Hopefully all the patients will be examined over the course of two days at each location, and if needed, the rest will be examined at a later date.
Hypothesis- Current hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the long-term outcome between the two groups. However, it will be interesting to see how many patients have received a prosthesis, and how many patients struggle with arthrosis. As the previous follow-up studies showed a significant difference in total flexion work between the two groups, we will be interested in detecting a persistent difference between the groups.
Another interesting aspect will be the rate of graft failure between the two groups.
Feasibility- The strength of the study is the randomization and the long follow-up period of 17-20 years. The possible limitations are the fact that there may be a problem recruiting enough patients to the follow-up, and that it might not be able to get x-rays of the patients at the different hospitals, as this is a matter of cost and availability. In addition, the different hospitals may not have a Biodex available.
Publicity plan- The goal for the paper is to be published in an international journal and probably be presented at conferences. For article, that hopefully will be published in journals, Marko Popovic will stand as first author, and Julie Holen and Julie Myhre as contributing authors. Jon Olav Drogset will be listed last, as the main supervisor.
Ethics- The REK-application was submitted on the 24th of December 2021. Application number: 391796. Additionally, the project will be reported to NSD when the REK-application is approved.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
ACL
ACL Injury
Cruciate Ligament Rupture
ACL Tear
Surgery
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Observational Model Type
COHORT
Study Time Perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
BPTB group
Bone-patellar tendon- bone graft used for ACL reconstruction.
ACL reconstruction
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Randomized between hamstring and patellar tendon graft
Hamstring group
Double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis graft used for ACL reconstruction
ACL reconstruction
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Randomized between hamstring and patellar tendon graft
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
ACL reconstruction
Randomized between hamstring and patellar tendon graft
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Graft choice,
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Primary reconstructions of isolated ACL-ruptures. Surgery at least 6 weeks after injury. Age 18-45 years.
* The patient must understand and accept the written consent. The written consent must be signed by the patient before surgery.
* Normal two-plane X-ray of the knee.
* The patient must understand and accept the written consent. The written consent must be signed by the patient before surgery.
* Normal two-plane X-ray of the knee.
Exclusion Criteria
-\>5mm + chronic MCL-injury in the same knee.
* Patient with major additional injury in the knee: combined instability, cartilage injuries Outerbridge grade 3-4 and at least 1cm in diameter on the femoral condyle and major meniscal lesions with meniscal repairs.
* Patients having problems following the protocol.
* The patient does not understand the written consent or will not sign it.
* Patients with a history of alcohol or drug abuse the last three years.
* The patient has received any investigational drugs within 30 days prior to admittance to this study.
* The patient has O.A., podagra, RA, Bechterew's disease or chondrocalcinosis.
* The patient has malalignment with more than 5 degrees valgus and no varus compared to a normal knee.
* The patient has patellofemoral instability.
* The patient is obese with BMI\>30.
* The patient has a present or former serious illness that makes follow-up or rehabilitation of the patient difficult.
* Former major surgical procedures in the same knee, including prosthesis.
* Treated or untreated anterior cruciate ligament injury in the other knee.
* Patient with major additional injury in the knee: combined instability, cartilage injuries Outerbridge grade 3-4 and at least 1cm in diameter on the femoral condyle and major meniscal lesions with meniscal repairs.
* Patients having problems following the protocol.
* The patient does not understand the written consent or will not sign it.
* Patients with a history of alcohol or drug abuse the last three years.
* The patient has received any investigational drugs within 30 days prior to admittance to this study.
* The patient has O.A., podagra, RA, Bechterew's disease or chondrocalcinosis.
* The patient has malalignment with more than 5 degrees valgus and no varus compared to a normal knee.
* The patient has patellofemoral instability.
* The patient is obese with BMI\>30.
* The patient has a present or former serious illness that makes follow-up or rehabilitation of the patient difficult.
* Former major surgical procedures in the same knee, including prosthesis.
* Treated or untreated anterior cruciate ligament injury in the other knee.
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Maximum Eligible Age
45 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
St. Olavs Hospital
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Jon O. Drogset, PhD
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
St Olav Hospital Trondheim
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
St Olav Hospital
Trondheim, Trøndelag, Norway
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Norway
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Bourke HE, Salmon LJ, Waller A, Patterson V, Pinczewski LA. Survival of the anterior cruciate ligament graft and the contralateral ACL at a minimum of 15 years. Am J Sports Med. 2012 Sep;40(9):1985-92. doi: 10.1177/0363546512454414. Epub 2012 Aug 6.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Leys T, Salmon L, Waller A, Linklater J, Pinczewski L. Clinical results and risk factors for reinjury 15 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective study of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts. Am J Sports Med. 2012 Mar;40(3):595-605. doi: 10.1177/0363546511430375. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Freedman KB, D'Amato MJ, Nedeff DD, Kaz A, Bach BR Jr. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a metaanalysis comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;31(1):2-11. doi: 10.1177/03635465030310011501.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, Lind M, Forssblad M, Albrektsen G, Drogset JO. Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med. 2014 Oct;42(10):2319-28. doi: 10.1177/0363546514548164. Epub 2014 Sep 8.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gifstad T, Sole A, Strand T, Uppheim G, Grontvedt T, Drogset JO. Long-term follow-up of patellar tendon grafts or hamstring tendon grafts in endoscopic ACL reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Mar;21(3):576-83. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-1947-0. Epub 2012 Mar 10.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Drogset JO, Strand T, Uppheim G, Odegard B, Boe A, Grontvedt T. Autologous patellar tendon and quadrupled hamstring grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized multicenter review of different fixation methods. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Aug;18(8):1085-93. doi: 10.1007/s00167-009-0996-5. Epub 2009 Dec 3.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Herzog MM, Marshall SW, Lund JL, Pate V, Mack CD, Spang JT. Trends in Incidence of ACL Reconstruction and Concomitant Procedures Among Commercially Insured Individuals in the United States, 2002-2014. Sports Health. 2018 Nov/Dec;10(6):523-531. doi: 10.1177/1941738118803616.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Costa-Paz M, Garcia-Mansilla I, Marciano S, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL. Knee-related quality of life, functional results and osteoarthritis at a minimum of 20 years' follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2019 Jun;26(3):666-672. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.04.010. Epub 2019 May 15.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Risberg MA, Oiestad BE, Gunderson R, Aune AK, Engebretsen L, Culvenor A, Holm I. Changes in Knee Osteoarthritis, Symptoms, and Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 20-Year Prospective Follow-up Study. Am J Sports Med. 2016 May;44(5):1215-24. doi: 10.1177/0363546515626539. Epub 2016 Feb 24.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Mohtadi NG, Chan DS, Dainty KN, Whelan DB. Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 7;2011(9):CD005960. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005960.pub2.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Persson A, Fjeldsgaard K, Gjertsen JE, Kjellsen AB, Engebretsen L, Hole RM, Fevang JM. Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004-2012. Am J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;42(2):285-91. doi: 10.1177/0363546513511419. Epub 2013 Dec 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Goldblatt JP, Fitzsimmons SE, Balk E, Richmond JC. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis of patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft. Arthroscopy. 2005 Jul;21(7):791-803. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.04.107.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Holm I, Oiestad BE, Risberg MA, Aune AK. No difference in knee function or prevalence of osteoarthritis after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with 4-strand hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon-bone autograft: a randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):448-54. doi: 10.1177/0363546509350301. Epub 2010 Jan 23.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Mascarenhas R, Tranovich MJ, Kropf EJ, Fu FH, Harner CD. Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the young athlete: a retrospective matched analysis with 2-10 year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Aug;20(8):1520-7. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1735-2. Epub 2011 Nov 3.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sajovic M, Vengust V, Komadina R, Tavcar R, Skaza K. A prospective, randomized comparison of semitendinosus and gracilis tendon versus patellar tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: five-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2006 Dec;34(12):1933-40. doi: 10.1177/0363546506290726. Epub 2006 Aug 21.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Xie X, Liu X, Chen Z, Yu Y, Peng S, Li Q. A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2015 Mar;22(2):100-10. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.11.014. Epub 2014 Dec 11.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Bjornsson H, Samuelsson K, Sundemo D, Desai N, Sernert N, Rostgard-Christensen L, Karlsson J, Kartus J. A Randomized Controlled Trial With Mean 16-Year Follow-up Comparing Hamstring and Patellar Tendon Autografts in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016 Sep;44(9):2304-13. doi: 10.1177/0363546516646378. Epub 2016 May 26.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Coffey R, Bordoni B. Lachman Test. 2023 Jul 24. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554415/
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sajovic M, Stropnik D, Skaza K. Long-term Comparison of Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendon Versus Patellar Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 17-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul;46(8):1800-1808. doi: 10.1177/0363546518768768. Epub 2018 May 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Vaudreuil NJ, Rothrauff BB, de Sa D, Musahl V. The Pivot Shift: Current Experimental Methodology and Clinical Utility for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture and Associated Injury. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019 Mar;12(1):41-49. doi: 10.1007/s12178-019-09529-7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Arneja S, Leith J. Review article: Validity of the KT-1000 knee ligament arthrometer. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2009 Apr;17(1):77-9. doi: 10.1177/230949900901700117.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Sep;(198):43-9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 May 25;1:17. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-17.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kohn MD, Sassoon AA, Fernando ND. Classifications in Brief: Kellgren-Lawrence Classification of Osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Aug;474(8):1886-93. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4732-4. Epub 2016 Feb 12. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Pinczewski LA, Lyman J, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Roe J, Linklater J. A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft: a controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med. 2007 Apr;35(4):564-74. doi: 10.1177/0363546506296042. Epub 2007 Jan 29.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Thompson SM, Salmon LJ, Waller A, Linklater J, Roe JP, Pinczewski LA. Twenty-Year Outcome of a Longitudinal Prospective Evaluation of Isolated Endoscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Patellar Tendon or Hamstring Autograft. Am J Sports Med. 2016 Dec;44(12):3083-3094. doi: 10.1177/0363546516658041. Epub 2016 Aug 4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Konrads C, Reppenhagen S, Plumhoff P, Hoberg M, Rudert M, Barthel T. No significant difference in clinical outcome and knee stability between patellar tendon and semitendinosus tendon in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 Apr;136(4):521-5. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2386-4. Epub 2016 Jan 2.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Bourke HE, Gordon DJ, Salmon LJ, Waller A, Linklater J, Pinczewski LA. The outcome at 15 years of endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft for 'isolated' anterior cruciate ligament rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 May;94(5):630-7. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B5.28675.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Webster KE, Feller JA, Hartnett N, Leigh WB, Richmond AK. Comparison of Patellar Tendon and Hamstring Tendon Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 15-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):83-90. doi: 10.1177/0363546515611886. Epub 2015 Nov 17.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Samuelsen BT, Webster KE, Johnson NR, Hewett TE, Krych AJ. Hamstring Autograft versus Patellar Tendon Autograft for ACL Reconstruction: Is There a Difference in Graft Failure Rate? A Meta-analysis of 47,613 Patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Oct;475(10):2459-2468. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5278-9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Popovic M, Myhre JR, Holen JIH, Gifstad T, Strand IL, Strand T, Mo IF, Fischer-Bredenbeck C, Drogset JO. Reduced Knee Flexion Strength 18 Years After ACL Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Versus Patellar Tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2024 Sep;52(11):2750-2757. doi: 10.1177/03635465241271524. Epub 2024 Sep 2.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
391796
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Graft Selection in Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
NCT03073083
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Nordic Hamstring Exercise After ACL Reconstruction Reconstruction
NCT05738200
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Three Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
NCT00529958
COMPLETED
NA
Comparative Evaluation of Functional Results and Survival Rate of Peroneus Longus Tendon - PLT and Hamstring Tendon - HT Used for Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.
NCT05579067
UNKNOWN
NA
Follow up of Patients Operated With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
NCT01279759
UNKNOWN
Can Targeted Exercise Improve Knee Strength Following ACLR (RATE)
NCT02939677
COMPLETED
NA
The Effect of Knee Flexion Angle for Graft Fixation During Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
NCT03875807
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Doubled Quadrupled Versus Quadrupled Allograft Tissue Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction
NCT01148784
COMPLETED
NA
Comparative Study of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (Quadriceps Versus Hamstring Tendon)
NCT02832791
COMPLETED
NA
Can Sensorimotor Function Predict Graft Rupture After ACL Reconstruction
NCT04162613
RECRUITING
Optimizing Graft Selection for ACL Reconstruction
NCT05342441
RECRUITING
NA
Quadrupled Semitendinosus Graft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
NCT03433170
COMPLETED
NA
Graft Maturity After Blood Flow Restriction Training in ACL Reconstruction
NCT05972876
RECRUITING
NA
Comparison of Remnant Preserving Versus Remnant Resecting Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
NCT02555917
UNKNOWN
NA
Effect of Tunnel Placements on Clinical and MRI Findings Two Years After ACL Reconstruction With DB Technique
NCT02000258
COMPLETED
NA
Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction Using Different Grafts and Surgical Techniques
NCT00300300
TERMINATED
PHASE4
Comparison of Different Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery Techniques in Skeletally Immature Patients.
NCT04644497
COMPLETED
The Difference Between Rehabilitation With or Without Strength Training After Total Knee Replacement
NCT01351831
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Long-term Clinical and Radiographic Results of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Single-bundle Technique and External Tenodesis With Achilles Tendon Allograft.
NCT06868147
RECRUITING
Arthroscopic ACL Reconstruction: Hamstring Versus Quadriceps
NCT04137250
COMPLETED
NA
Muscle Preservation Hamstring Graft for ACL Reconstruction
NCT03998904
UNKNOWN
NA
Single Versus Double Hamstring Harvest for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
NCT03626883
UNKNOWN
NA
Characterizing Clinical and Biomechanical Contributions to Function Following ACL Reconstruction
NCT03132987
COMPLETED
NA
Use of Graft Tensioner Device in ACL (Knee) Repair
NCT00221273
COMPLETED
NA
Radiographic Findings and Clinical Outcomes After Bone Grafting Patellar Defect in ACL Reconstruction
NCT06975306
RECRUITING
NA