Return to Sports After ACL Augmentation With Anterolateral Reconstruction (ALR) Harvesting Gracilis Only Compared With ACL Reconstruction With ALR Harvesting Both Hamstring Tendons
Authors: Fayard Jean-Marie , Foissey Constant , Pacoret Victor , Abid Hichem , Vieira Thais Dutra , Gabr Ayman , Thaunat Mathieu 
Published: August 2023

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair (ACL-Rp) is known to be a valuable alternative to ACL reconstruction (ACL-Rc) in selected indications. The majority of the ACL-Rp techniques recommend the use of a synthetic brace. The use of the gracilis allows both a biological internal brace and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALR). Purpose: The primary objective was to compare the early ability to return to sports between patients who underwent ACL-Rp using a gracilis autograft as an internal brace augmentation with ALR and patients who underwent the conventional ACL-Rc with ALR technique sacrificing both the gracilis and the semitendinosus. The secondary objective was to compare the failure rate, clinical scores, and return to sports at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective analysis was undertaken. A total of 49 patients who underwent ACL-Rp with ALR between December 2018 and May 2019 were propensity matched at a 1:1 ratio to those who underwent ACL-Rc with ALR during the same period. The decision to perform ACL-Rp with ALR was based on preoperative selection and intraoperative arthroscopic findings: proximal avulsion tear, partial ACL tear, low- to midlevel sports participation, and good tissue quality. The ability to return to sports was assessed using isokinetic tests and the Knee Santy Athletic Return to Sport test functional test at 6 months postoperatively. At the final follow-up, knee laxity parameters, return to sports, and clinical outcome (Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Return to Sport after Injury score) were recorded. Results: The ACL-Rp group had significantly less hamstring strength deficit when compared with their counterparts who underwent ACL-Rc (0.2% vs 10.2% in concentric, P < .001; 2.5% vs 14% in eccentric, P < .001). The mean Knee Santy Athletic Return to Sport test score was significantly higher in the ACL-Rc group (69.7% ± 16.6% [range, 19%-100%] vs 61% ± 16.8% [range, 19%-100%]; P = .001). In the ACL-Rp group, 61% (30/49) of the patients were authorized to return to pivot sports versus 41% (20/49) in the ACL-Rc group ( P = .04). At a mean final follow-up of 31.4 ± 3.5 months, no significant differences were demonstrated between groups with respect to clinical scores and knee laxity parameters. There was a trend for a higher failure rate in the ACL-Rp group without any significance (ACL-Rp: 6.1% [3/49] vs ACL-Rc: 0%; P = .08). Conclusion: At 6 months after operation, harvesting only the gracilis with this ACL-Rp and augmentation with ALR technique was linked to a better early ability to return to sports compared with the ACL-Rc with ALR technique harvesting both the gracilis and semitendinosus. This technique had a limited effect on early flexion strength and provided a satisfactory rerupture rate.