Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Revision Rates, and Sports Participation Between Hamstring and Quadriceps Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In recent years, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in children and adolescents (age ≤18 years) have been increasing, and the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft has been gaining popularity for ACL reconstruction. However, there is no consensus regarding the graft choice for ACL reconstruction in these young patients. There has been a paucity of literature comparing the functional outcomes of hamstring tendon (HT) and QT autografts for ACL reconstruction in patients aged ≤18 years. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of HT and QT autografts for ACL reconstruction in pediatric and adolescent patients (age ≤18 years) in terms of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores, knee stability, graft failure rates, and sports participation after ACL reconstruction. The hypothesis was that the QT autograft would result in better functional outcomes with a high rate of return to sporting activity and a low rate of graft failure after ACL reconstruction compared with the HT autograft in this population. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: From 2010 to 2022, there were 2417 ACL reconstruction procedures performed at our institution. The inclusion criteria were primary ACL reconstruction using an HT or QT autograft and age ≤18 years. The exclusion criteria were revision ACL reconstruction; utilization of a graft type other than HT and QT autografts; and concomitant posterior cruciate ligament injuries, contralateral knee injuries, and conditions that might interfere with a standard postoperative rehabilitation protocol. A minimally invasive technique was used for QT autograft harvesting. The size of the QT graft ranged from 8 to 9 mm with specific instrumentation. Similarly, the size of the HT graft ranged from 8 to 9 mm. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up for the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity level, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; knee stability (Lachman and pivot-shift tests); graft failure; and sports participation. The Lachman test and pivot-shift test were performed preoperatively under anesthesia and postoperatively at 2-year follow-up. Results: The number of patients in the HT and QT groups was 77 and 80, respectively. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, sex, and concomitant injuries. No significant difference was found in preinjury PROM scores (Lysholm, Tegner, and VAS) and knee stability between the 2 groups ( P > .05). Similarly, no significant difference was observed at 2-year follow-up between the 2 groups for PROM scores and knee stability ( P > .05). The Lysholm, Tegner, and VAS scores improved to preinjury values in both the groups, and no significant difference was found in Lysholm, Tegner, and VAS scores between preinjury and 2-year follow-up ( P > .05). At 2-year follow-up, both the groups achieved sports participation at the preinjury level ( P > .05). Graft failure occurred in 11 (14%) and 8 (10%) patients of the HT and QT groups, respectively. The rate of failure did not differ significantly between groups ( P > .05). Conclusion: A QT autograft for ACL reconstruction led to similar clinical outcomes, revision rates, and sports participation compared with an HT autograft in pediatric and adolescent patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".