Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with the tendons of the semitendinosus and gracilis doubled: a comparison with reconstruction using the patellar tendon.

A total of sixty consecutive cases of anterior chronic laxity of the knee the pre- and intraoperative features of which corresponded to the criteria of inclusion considered, hospitalized in our institute between September and December 1998 and submitted to reconstruction of the ACL were reviewed at a follow-up of 74 months. The series was made up of two groups that were homogeneous in terms of sex, age, degree of preoperative laxity and number and type of associated meniscal lesions; in the first group (20 cases) reconstruction was carried out using the patellar tendon (BPTB) and in the other (40 cases) the doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons (DGST) were used with the association in cases with greater rotatory laxity (20 cases) of peripheral reinforcement reconstruction. An accelerated rehabilitation protocol was used in the first group, a more prudent one with immobilization in extension for two weeks was used in the second group. The results, evaluated based on the IKDC form, appeared to be better in the DGST group, with a statistically significant difference; joint stability, evaluated at follow-up with a KT1000 arthrometer also proved to be better in the DGST group, with a difference that was not statistically significant. The present study seems to show that reconstruction of the ACL with DGST, a prudent rehabilitation protocol and peripheral reinforcement reconstruction in selected cases is capable of providing better long-term results as compared to standard reconstruction with the patellar tendon and accelerated rehabilitation protocol. Among methods used to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), those that utilize the central third of the patellar tendon (BPTB) or the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons (DGST) continue to be those used most frequently. Although the debate between orthopedics is still going on as to which of the two methods is to be preferred, studies that compare the two methods do not seem to report essential differences in medium-term results. In a recent meta-analysis of the most important international literature, to this regard Freedman et al. concluded that despite a significant major presence of anterior pain reconstruction with BPTB is capable of guaranteeing better joint stability and patient satisfaction, with a minor incidence of transplant failure. Nonetheless, if methods of reconstruction with BPTB seem to be rather standardized in terms of the method used to obtain the specimen and that used for stabilization (with very few differences between interference screws and transverse stabilization), and in postoperative rehabilitation (so-called accelerated), when DGST is used there are many technical variables capable of influencing the final results (choice of methods of stabilization, postoperative rehabilitation in particular). For this reason we still cannot obtain an absolute comparison of the two methods, but can only compare reconstruction with BPTB and a particular method used with DGST. It is the purpose of this study to present the medium-term results not so much of ACL reconstruction with the semitendinosus and gracilis doubled, but as a more articulate approach to the pathology of the ACL, so that DGST is only one phase, even if it is the most important one. Because we wished to verify whether it is possible, even in terms of joint stability and patient satisfaction, to improve the results of the so-called gold standard for reconstruction of the ACL, reconstruction by BPTB with transverse femoral reconstruction and accelerated postoperative rehabilitation protocol was chosen as a term of paragon.