An Autograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Results in Better Biomechanical Performance and Tendon-Bone Incorporation Than Does a Hybrid Graft in a Rat Model.

BACKGROUND: The biomechanical and tendon-bone incorporation properties of allograft-augmented hybrid grafts for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction compared with traditional autografts are unknown.

HYPOTHESIS: Using an autograft for ACL reconstruction yields better results on biomechanical testing, radiographic analysis, and histological evaluation versus using a hybrid graft.

STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS: A total of 66 adult male Sprague Dawley rats underwent unilateral ACL reconstruction with an autograft (AT group; n = 33) or a hybrid graft (HB group; n = 33). The grafts used in both groups were harvested from the peroneus longus tendon and were fixed by suturing to the surrounding periosteum. Samples were harvested for biomechanical testing, micro-computed tomography (CT), and histological evaluation at 4, 8, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Bone tunnels on the femoral and tibial sides were divided into 3 subregions: intra-articular (IA), midtunnel (MT), and extra-articular (EA). A cylinder-like volume of interest in the bone tunnel and a tubular-like volume of interest around the bone tunnel were used to evaluate new bone formation and bone remodeling, respectively, via micro-CT.

RESULTS: In the AT group, there were significantly higher failure loads and stiffness at 8 weeks (failure load: 3.04 ± 0.40 vs 2.09 ± 0.54 N, respectively; P = .006) (stiffness: 3.43 ± 0.56 vs 1.75 ± 0.52 N/mm, respectively; P < .001) and 12 weeks (failure load: 9.10 ± 1.13 vs 7.14 ± 0.94 N, respectively; P = .008) (stiffness: 4.45 ± 0.75 vs 3.36 ± 0.29 N/mm, respectively; P = .008) than in the HB group. With regard to new bone formation in the bone tunnel, in the AT group, the bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) was significantly higher than in the HB group on the tibial side at 8 weeks (IA: 22.21 ± 4.98 vs 5.16 ± 3.98, respectively; P < .001) (EA: 19.66 ± 7.19 vs 10.85 ± 2.16, respectively; P = .030) and 12 weeks (IA: 30.50 ± 5.04 vs 17.11 ± 7.31, respectively; P = .010) (MT: 21.15 ± 2.58 vs 15.55 ± 4.48, respectively; P = .041) (EA: 20.75 ± 3.87 vs 10.64 ± 3.94, respectively; P = .003). With regard to bone remodeling around the tunnel, the BV/TV was also significantly higher on the tibial side at 8 weeks (MT: 33.17 ± 8.05 vs 15.21 ± 7.60, respectively; P = .007) (EA: 25.19 ± 6.38 vs 13.94 ± 7.10, respectively; P = .030) and 12 weeks (IA: 69.46 ± 4.45 vs 47.80 ± 6.16, respectively; P < .001) (MT: 33.15 ± 3.88 vs 13.76 ± 4.07, respectively; P < .001) in the AT group than in the HB group. Sharpey-like fibers had formed at 8 weeks in the AT group. A large number of fibroblasts withdrew at 12 weeks. In the AT group, the width of the interface was significantly narrower at 4 weeks (85.86 ± 17.49 vs 182.97 ± 14.35 μm, respectively; P < .001), 8 weeks (58.86 ± 10.99 vs 90.15 ± 11.53 μm, respectively; P = .002), and 12 weeks (42.70 ± 7.96 vs 67.29 ± 6.55 μm, respectively; P = .001) than in the HB group.

CONCLUSION: Using an autograft for ACL reconstruction may result in improved biomechanical properties and tendon-bone incorporation compared with a hybrid graft.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Augmenting small autografts with allograft tissue may result in decreased biomechanical performance and worse tendon-bone incorporation, increasing the risk of graft failure.