Hamstrings Graft Harvesting: Where Should be the Incision? Anatomical Landmarks Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Alan Augusto Coelho1, Júlio César Nather Júnior2, Rodrigo Salim1, Mauricio Kfuri Junior3, Robinson Esteves Pires4 and Fabricio Fogagnolo1*
1Department of Orthopaedics and Anaesthesiology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto (SP), Brazil
2Department of Medical Imaging, Hematology and Clinical Oncology. Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto (SP), Brazil
3Missouri Orthopaedic Institute. University of Missouri, Columbia (MO), United States
4Department of the Locomotor Apparatus. Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte (MG), Brazil
*Corresponding Author: Fabricio Fogagnolo, Department of Orthopaedics and Anaesthesiology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto (SP), Brazil.
August 19, 2022; Published: September 12, 2022
Objective: The objective of the present study was to standardize the surgical approach for hamstring graft harvesting, with location of the center of the incision based on anatomical parameters and using data from a selection of magnetic resonance images of the knee.
Method: This study analyzed 40 magnetic resonance images of the knee (20 men and 20 women). The parameters measured were: longitudinal distance from the proximal border of the pes anserinus to the femorotibial joint in the coronal section (PA-JOINT); transverse distance from the lateral border of the pes anserinus to the medial border of the anterior tibial tuberosity in the axial section (PA-ATT); and ratio between the distance from the proximal border of the pes anserinus to the femorotibial joint (PA-JOINT) and the largest transverse width of the tibial plateau (WIDTH PLATEAU).
Results: According to the analysis, the location of the center of the incision was estimated to be 4.0 cm distally to the femorotibial joint (PA-JOINT) and 2.5 cm medially to the anterior tibial tuberosity (PA-ATT). There was a strong intra-observer and regular inter-observer correlation for these measurements.
Conclusion: With the precise determination of the incision center, it is possible to standardize an accurate and reproducible surgical approach for hamstring graft harvesting.
Keywords: Hamstring Graft; Autologous Graft; Surgical Approach; Ligament Reconstruction; Knee Surgery
- Salmon L., et al. “Incidence and risk factors for graft rupture and contralateral rupture after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction”. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 8 (2005): 948-957.
- Hewett TE., et al. “Current concepts for injury prevention in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction”. American Journal of Sports Medicine 1 (2013): 216-224.
- Hardy A., et al. “Complications following harvesting of patellar tendon or hamstring tendon grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Systematic review of literature”. Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Surgery and Research 8 (2017): S245-S248.
- Shelbourne KD., et al. “Return to sports and subsequent injury rates after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft”. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 6 (2014): 1395-1400.
- Pinczewski L., et al. “Sports Knee Rating Systems and Related Statistics. In: Insall and Scott Surgery of the Knee”. 6th Elsevier (2018): 396-400.
- Miller RH and Frederick MA. “Knee Injuries”. In: Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics”. 12th Elsevier (2012): 2147-2149.
- Ruffilli A., et al. “Saphenous nerve injury during hamstring tendons harvest: Does the incision matter? A systematic review”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10 (2017): 3140-3145.
- Alomar AZ., et al. “Hamstring autografts are associated with a high rate of contamination in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 5 (2018): 1357-1361.
- Murphy MV., et al. “Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction”. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 7 (2016): 827-833.
- Sipahioglu S., et al. “Injury of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve due to hamstring graft harvest: A prospective comparative study of two different incisions”. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 1 (2017).
- Phegan M., et al. “No infections in 1300 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with vancomycin pre-soaking of hamstring grafts”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 9 (2016): 2729-2735.
- Leadbette WB. “Complications and Pitfalls in Reconstruction of Cruciate Ligaments. In: Malek MM, ed”. Knee Surgery: Complication, Pitfalls and Salvage. Springer US (2000): 14-21.
- Dujardin D., et al. “Muscle recovery after ACL reconstruction with 4-strand semitendinosus graft harvested through either a posterior or anterior incision: A preliminary study”. Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Surgery and Research 5 (2015): 539-542.
- Lanternier H., et al. “Short medial approach harvesting of hamstring tendons”. Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Surgery and Research 2 (2016): 269-272.
- De Campos GC., et al. “Current panorama of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery in Brazil”. Acta Ortopedica Brasileira 3 (2019): 146-151.
- Grassi A., et al. “Association between incision technique for hamstring tendon harvest in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and the risk of injury to the infra-patellar branch of the saphenous nerve: a meta-analysis”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 8 (2018): 2410-2423.
- Henry BM., et al. “Oblique incisions in hamstring tendon harvesting reduce iatrogenic injuries to the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 4 (2018): 1197-1203.