Evidence Hub

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Rectus Femoris or Hamstring Tendon Shows Comparable Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements at Short-Term Follow-Up: A Retrospective Cohort Study

T. Huber, Marcel Frühwirth, Florian Hartenbach, Sarah Franzmair, David Ullmann, Klemens Trieb, B. Rath

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2025

28 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Background: The isolated rectus femoris tendon (RT) is a less commonly used autograft for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Graft selection is a critical part of ACL reconstruction, especially in revision surgery. Hypothesis: This study compares patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) between revision ACL reconstruction with an RT autograft and a hamstring tendon (HT) autograft. We hypothesized that the RT autograft will yield comparable functional results and high patient satisfaction. Study Design: This was a cohort study; the level of evidence is III. Methods: Fifty-five patients (RT n = 28; HT n = 27) who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were included in this study, with a mean follow-up time of 40.3 months (range, 16.4–64.8) for RT and 61.2 months (range, 34.6–86.3) for HT. Apart from the harvesting technique, the surgical technique was the same for both groups. Clinical and intraoperative data were collected for our postoperative registry. In addition, funcinal outcome was measured using the International Knee Documentation Committee score (IKDC), the Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and numeric rating scale (NRS). The type and frequency of postoperative complications were documented. Results: At the final follow-up, no significant differences were observed between the RT and HT groups in the IKDC (mean ± SD: 74.7 ± 10.9 vs. 74.9 ± 12.9), Lysholm score (90.9 ± 15.0 vs. 89.0 ± 14.6), or Tegner activity scale (median [IQR]: 5 [4–6] vs. 5…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 28 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free