## 3 Results
### Comparisons of the GNRB Results between the Groups  
This is an ongoing study, and at the moment of writing, we had tested 48 patients (27 HT and 21 QT) 3 months post-surgery and 45 patients (26 HT and 19 QT) 6 months post-surgery (Figure 3). The dynamical differences between the autografts are presented in Table 2. From these results, we can see that the largest differences between the two groups were seen at 3 months post-surgery. We found that the side-to-side anterior tibial translation at a 134 N force 3 months post-op (GNRB1) was statistically significantly worse in the HT group (1.4 mm; 0.2-5.2; 1.715) than in the QT group (0.6 mm; 0.1-2.1; 0.905) (U = 172, \(p\) = 0.02). When the same measure was performed 6 months post-op, the statistical differences disappeared. There was no statistically significant difference in the side-to-side anterior tibial translation at a 134 N force 6 months post-op (GNRB2) between the HT and the QT group (1 mm; 0.2-5.3; 1.519, vs. 1.1 mm; 0.3-3.4; 1.279) (U = 243, \(p\) = 0.927). However, less variability was noticed in the QT group (Figure 4)  
The possible graft failure was also evaluated. However, unlike for the anterior tibial displacement measures, no statistically significant difference was found in the displacement curve slopes 3 months (4.7 (0-23; 5; 974) vs. 4.1 (1.8-9; 4; 4.29)) (U = 277.5, \(p\) = 0.901)) and 6 months (4.7 (0.1-26.1; 6.3) vs. 4.1 (0-18.3; 5.216)) (U = 206, \(p\) = 0.345)) post-op between the HT and the QT group.  
It was important to evaluate a concomitant meniscus injury as a possible distorting factor for our results. When we measured the side-to-side anterior tibial translation in each autograft in the sutured and non-sutured groups, no statistical difference was found. It is safe to say that concomitant injuries did not have a statistically significant influence on our main results.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **HT** & **QT** & \(p\) **Value** \\ \hline GNRB1 134 N (3 months post-op) & & & \\ N & 27 & 21 & \(p\) = 0.02 \\ Median (min-max; mean) & 1.4 (0.2–5.2; 1.715) & 0.6 (0.1–2.1; 0.905) & \\ \hline GNRB1 134 N (6 months post-op) & & & \\ N & 26 & 19 & n.s. \\ Median (min-max; mean) & 1 (0.2–5.3; 1.519) & 1.1 (0.3–3.4; 1.279) & \\ \hline Curve slope 134 N (3 months post-op) & & & \\ N & 27 & 21 & n.s. \\ Median (min-max; mean) & 4.7 (0–23; 5.974) & 4.1 (1.8–9.4; 4.29) & \\ \hline Curve slope 134 N (6 months post-op) & & & \\ N & 26 & 19 & n.s. \\ Median (min-max; mean) & 4.7 (0.1–26.1; 6.3) & 4.1 (0–18.3; 5.216) & \\ \hline \end{tabular} HT: hamstring tendon autograft, QT: quadriceps tendon autograft, N: number of patients, n.s.: not significant.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Side-to-side anterior tibial translation (GNRB) results of each autograft group.  
Figure 4: Diagrams showing the variation in the anterior tibial translation values in the HT and QT groups. HT: hamstring tendon autograft, QT: quadriceps tendon autograft. Min-max, mean and quartiles 1 to 3 represented.  
In conclusion, these results showed that greater stability in the anterior tibial displacement was achieved faster when the QT autograft was used, but in a longer perspective, the results of both stability and possible failure between the grafts were similar.