Skip to main content
ACL Study Group survey reveals the evolution of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft choice over the past three decades. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA Arnold, M. P., Calcei, J. G., Vogel, N., Magnussen, R. A., Clatworthy, M., Spalding, T., Campbell, J. D., Bergfeld, J. A., Sherman, S. L., ACL Study Group 2021


PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) aims to restore knee function and stability, allowing patients to return to the activities they enjoy and minimize further injury to the meniscus and cartilage and their ultimate progression to osteoarthritis. This study aims to present the evolution of graft choice over the last three decades according to members of the ACL Study Group (SG).METHODS: Prior to the January 2020 ACL SG biannual meeting, a survey was administered consisting of 87 questions and 16 categories, including ACLR graft choice. A similar questionnaire has been administered prior to each meeting and survey results from the past 14 meetings (1992 through 2020, excluding 1994) are included in this work. Survey responses are reported as frequencies in percentages to quantify changes in practice over the surgery period.RESULTS: In 1992, the most frequent graft choice for primary ACLR was bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft, at nearly 90%. Hamstring tendon (HT) autografts have increased in popularity, currently over 50%, followed by just under 40% BTB autograft. Recently, quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft has increased in popularity since 2014.CONCLUSION: Autograft (HT, BTB, QT) is an overwhelming favorite for primary ACLR over allograft. The preference for HT autograft increased over the study period relative to BTB autograft, with QT autograft gaining in popularity in recent years. Graft selection should be individualized for each patient and understanding the global trends in graft choice can help orthopaedic surgeons discuss graft options with their patients and determine the appropriate graft for each case.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, Expert Opinion.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s00167-021-06443-9

View details for PubMedID 33486558