Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose

The anterior cruciate ligament in the knee is commonly prone to injuries. Reconstruction of this ligament with hamstring tendon has been time-tested but peroneus longus autograft is also gaining popularity. However, very limited literature is available comparing the two grafts. This study aims to compare the functional outcome and donor site morbidity between hamstrings and peroneus longus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Methods

A prospective randomised study was conducted on 45 patients, who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Patients were assigned into Hamstring group and the Peroneus longus group. Functional outcome was assessed using Lysholm score and Modified Cincinnati scores for the knee joint and American Orthopedics Foot and Ankle Scoring for ankle joint. Donor site morbidity was assessed by measuring flexion and extension strength of the knee and plantar flexion and eversion strength of the ankle by handheld dynamometer preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months and 1 year follow up.

Results

Functional outcome of the knee showed significant improvement in peroneus longus group (p-value 0.002) compared to hamstring group. Even though there was minimal reduction in functional outcome of the ankle at 6 months follow-up in peroneus longus group, it improved at one year follow-up. While assessing the donor site morbidity at the knee joint, knee flexion strength showed improvement in the group (p-value 0.02) but reduced in the hamstring group where the hamstring tendon was harvested. Knee extension strength in the hamstring group scored marginally better than the peroneus longus group, which was not statistically significant (p-value 0.5).

Conclusion

Autologous peroneus longus tendon can be used as a graft of choice in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction which showed promising results without compromising on the ankle function. Its usage as an alternative source of the graft may be more useful in multi-ligament injuries of the knee joint.

Keywords

ACL arthroscopy hamstrings peroneus longus autologous graft dynamometer

Introduction

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is an important ligamentous structure in the knee joint which helps in maintaining stability. ACL tears contribute to approximately 50% of knee injuries.¹ ACL reconstruction has been the standard surgical procedure in the case of ACL insufficiency. Over decades ACL reconstruction has evolved in terms of technique and graft used.

The patients in whom the Hamstring tendon (HST) is used as an autograft for ACL reconstruction have early recovery of quadriceps strength, good graft uptake, better tensile strength and less joint stiffness with satisfactory results in terms of patient compliance.² But it has limitations like random graft size, a probable decrease in knee joint flexion power, infection risk due to inadequate closure of the sartorius fascia and injury to the saphenous nerve during harvesting.³

Peroneus longus tendon (PL) is being used as an alternative to HST graft in recent years.^4,5 Tensile strength of four-strand hamstrings and double-strand peroneus longus was found to be higher than naive ACL which provides provision for the thought of harvesting peroneus longus for ACL reconstruction.⁶ Adequate diameter and length of PL have their upper hand over hamstrings autograft. It was found that even the anterior half of the PL tendon has enough length and strength to be effective in ACL reconstruction.⁷ Harvesting the entire PL has no effect on the stability of the ankle or gait proven by a biomechanical and kinematic study.⁸

In assessing the donor site morbidity, muscle strength has been believed to be a potential factor for physical performance, activities of daily living and sports activities. Hence following ACL reconstruction with HST or PL graft, the motor power of knee and ankle joint performance needs to be assessed.

The purpose of this study is to compare the functional outcome of knee and ankle by using MCS, Lysholm score and AOFAS respectively and donor site morbidity by measuring flexion and extension strength at the knee and eversion and plantar flexion strength at the ankle by HHD after ACL reconstruction using hamstrings and peroneus longus autograft. The outcomes were evaluated in each group preoperatively and at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively and analysed.

Outcomes

Primary outcome: To compare the functional outcome of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using hamstrings and peroneus longus autograft.

Secondary outcome: To evaluate the ankle donor site morbidity after harvesting ipsilateral peroneus longus tendon at ankle joint and knee donor site morbidity after harvesting ipsilateral hamstrings tendon at the knee joint.

Methods

Study design: This is a prospective randomised control study.

Study setting: The study was conducted from September 2019 to May 2020 in a tertiary referral centre.

Sample size: Based on hypothesized difference of 1.1 between two interventions with 90% power, Alpha level of 5% and 99% confidence interval – sample size calculated was minimum of 20 patients in each group (15). Formula used = 4PQ/D² P – Prevalence, Q = 100-P, D = Precision of 5%. The study population of 45 patients clinically diagnosed with an ACL tear and confirmed by MRI scan were included in the study.

Inclusion criteria: Patients aged more than 18 years of both sexes with ACL injury were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with a history of any previous fractures, ligament injuries or surgeries, any evidence of osteoarthritic changes of the affected knee or ankle were excluded. Patients with neuromuscular disorders were not included in the study.

Patients were assigned into 2 groups by computer-generated simple randomisation to HST(N = 22) or the PL(N = 23). (Figure 1)

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the methodology of the study.

Data collection: GRAPH-PAD SOFTWARE was used for computer-generated randomisation. Web address - http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/index.cfm

Option of “Random numbers” is selected and proceeded forward by selecting the “Randomly assign subjects to groups”. Enter the number of subjects in each group in tab “Assign” and select the number of the group from tab “Subjects to each group” and keep number 1 in repeat. Randomisation ratio was 1:1 for the study comparing the two groups.

Prior power analysis was done to ensure the sample was adequate for the study.

The study was approved by the institutional ethical committee. The informed consent was taken from the patient before the study.

The methodology of the study has been depicted in the form of a flow chart (Figure 1). Functional outcome was analysed using Lysholm score, Modified Cincinnati score (MCS) for the knee joint and American Orthopedic Foot and ankle society score for ankle joint. The Modified Cincinnati Knee score consists of 8 domains. Each domain consists of 5–6 questions which are to be answered by the patient at every follow-up (Table 1).

Table 1.

This table shows sections of modified cincinnati score.

Section 1	Pain intensity	20 points
Section 2	swelling	10 points
Section 3	Giveaway	20 points
Section 4	Overall activity level	20 points
Section 5	Walking	10 points
Section 6	Stairs	5 points
Section 7	Running activity	10 points
Section 8	Jumping or twisting	5 points

The muscle strength around the knee joint and ankle joints was measured before surgery on both normal and ACL deficient knees. (Figure 2) The unit of measurement of muscle strength was calculated in pounds (lb) in the handheld dynamometer. The normal side is taken as control. This value is compared to the muscle strength of the operated side after 6 months and 1 year postoperatively by MAKE method using an HHD where the machine is held statically and the patient tries to press it with full force and the average of three readings were recorded.⁹

Figure 2.

Technique of muscle strength measurement by HHD.

All measurements were taken by a single person to avoid study bias. Placement of HHD and measurement of muscle strength of the knee¹⁰ and ankle¹¹ and the position of the patient is shown in Figures 2 and 3. The HHD was positioned over the limb in such a way that person measuring has the maximum mechanical advantage.

Figure 3.

Testing the muscle power.

Statistical analysis: Statistics were done using the SPSS 21.0 version for windows. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Chi-square test/Fisher exact test was used comparing two or more independent proportions. Inferential statistics was done by using the chi-square test, independent t-test, and Mann-Whitney test. An independent t-test was used to compare means between independent groups/mutually exclusive groups.

Arthroscopic procedure

Standard anterolateral and anteromedial portals were used. Diagnostic arthroscopy was done before harvesting the graft. ACL reconstruction was performed by using the selected autologous graft either HST or PL graft harvested from the ipsilateral limb and fixed by loop endobutton on femur tunnel side and bio-absorbable screw-on tibial tunnel side in both hamstrings and peroneus longus groups.

The technique of ACL reconstruction with peroneus longus tendon autograft

ACL reconstruction using ipsilateral PL autograft was performed by a single senior knee surgeon. The full-thickness PL graft was harvested using an incision of about 2 cm long posterior to the lateral malleolus just above the superior peroneal retinaculum. PL and peroneus brevis tendon (PB) are exposed taking care not to injure the sural nerve. PL and PB are levered out of the skin window. Tenodesis of PL to PB is done. Heavy nonabsorbable Krackow stitches are placed on the PL and later incised. PL is then separated from the surrounding soft tissues. The tendon is harvested proximally using an open long tendon stripper about 4–5 cms from the fibular head to prevent peroneal nerve injury using a long tendon stripper by controlled tension. The point where tendon stripper was halted while harvesting the graft was loss of resistance while simultaneously pulling force on distal end of stump and advancing the tendon stripper forward. The point of loss of resistance was marked on skin and was observed that it was around 4–5 cm on average from the fibula head in the patients. The wound is closed in layers (Figure 4). Graft preparation was done by separating the muscle fibres from the tendon. Krackow-type whipstitches are placed on both ends of each tendon with nonabsorbable sutures. The graft may be doubled, tripled or quadrupled depending on the length of graft obtained to 7 mm to 8mm in thickness. After the preparation of the femoral and tibial tunnels, the tendon is passed and fixed as described earlier. The average length of the peroneus longus harvested was 8.5–9.0 cm and diameter on average was 8.5 cm. Peroneus longus autograft was longer in length and diameter compared to hamstrings autograft.

Figure 4.

A- skin incision for graft harvest, B-identification of peroneal tendon, C-tenodesis of PLT to PBT, D-tendon stripping.

Rehabilitation

Patients were discharged 5 days post-surgery after two check dressings. Both groups were treated with the same standard physiotherapy protocol.

In the first 2 weeks, knee flexion was started up to 90^o along with quadriceps and hamstrings strengthening exercises, ankle pump exercises, active straight leg raising with knee brace with complete extension and toe touch weight-bearing with knee brace in extension supported by a walker. In the following 3–6 weeks, full range of knee flexion, stationary cycling, weight-bearing as tolerated. Walker was weaned off depending on quadriceps strength. Ankle eversion strengthening exercises were advised to patients belonging to the peroneus longus group. By 6–12 weeks, the knee brace was discontinued, and partial squatting was started. After 6 months patients could return to sports activity. Knee band support was advised for contact sports, during jumping and landing activities for 1 year.

Results

Among the 45 patients selected for this study, 22 patients were included in the HST group and 23 patients in the PL group by simple computer randomisation. Among them 35 were males and 10 were females. Road traffic accidents were the commonest mode of injury followed by self-fall and sports injuries. (Table 2). The surgical site infection rate was more in the HST group (3patients) than in PL group (1 patient). After wound debridement and resuturing, the wound gradually healed. 6 patients developed kneeling pain in the HST group. No patients developed any ankle pain, numbness over the knee joint or ankle joint and limitation of the movement at the ankle joint.

Table 2.

Demographic data of study population.

	HTS group	PL group
Age	31.82 ± 9.62	33.57 ± 9.54
Gender
Female	4	6
Male	18	17
Mode Of Injury
Road traffic accident	9	8
Self-fall	5	9
Sports	8	6
Days after injury presenting to OPD	29.5	30

The important findings in the present study were, PL autograft showed improved Lysholm score and modified Cincinnati functional scores. There was better knee flexion strength improvement at the end of 1 year in the PL group compared to the HST autograft group. AOFAS score also showed significant improvement at the end of 1 year in the PL group.

Analysing the functional outcome at 1-year follow-up, substantial functional improvement was seen in MCS score in both HST and PL groups but significant results in the PL group (p-value 0.002). Lysholm's score also improved in both the groups at 1-year follow-up. Whereas slight reduction in AOFAS score was observed at the end of 1 year but did not affect the ankle function. (Table 3)

Table 3.

Functional scores analysis of ACL reconstruction using HTS and PL autograft.

	Hamstrings	Peroneus Longus	P value
MCS
Pre-op	67.59 ± 7.37	58.43 ± 8.53
6 months	81.68 ± 5.20	78.26 ± 6.50	0.06
1 year	86.45 ± 3.31	89.83 ± 3.47	0.002
LYSHOLM SCORE
Pre-op	62.73 ± 8.07	54.48 ± 10.80
6 months	77.77 ± 4.98	72.78 ± 8.50	0.2
1 year	86.55 ± 2.74	88.39 ± 4.60	0.1
AOFAS -
Pre-op	-	100 ± 0.00
6 months	-	90.48 ± 2.37
1 year	-	96.43 ± 3.13

Comparing the donor site morbidity between the HST and PL group, knee flexion strength showed improvement in both the groups by the end of 6 months and 1 year of follow-up. A substantial enhancement was observed in the PL group than the HST group (p-value 0.02) because the hamstring tendon was sacrificed in the HST group giving an advantage of preventing early loss of knee flexion strength and range of movement. Analysing the knee extension strength, there was remarkable improvement at the end of 6 months and 1 year. Here the HST group scored better than the PL group. But when both the groups were compared the results were not significant (p-value 0.5). In the ankle, both plantar flexion and eversion strength were reduced in the PL group at the end of 6 months follow-up, but later improved at the end of 1 year but not up to the strength of the normal side. (Table 4)

Table 4.

Pre- and post-operative donor site morbidity of knee flexion and knee extension between HTS and PL group after 6months and 1 year.

	Hamstrings	Peroneus Longus	P-value
Knee Flexion strength
Pre-operative Normal knee	42.45 ± 1.61	41.78 ± 4.51
Pre-operative Injury knee	29.80 ± 2.65	30.67 ± 2.89
At 6 months follow-up	38.13 ± 1.44	36.73 ± 2.01	0.007
At 1 year follow-up	40.65 ± 1.74	41.97 ± 1.98	0.02
Knee Extension strength
Pre-operative Normal knee	53.90 ± 1.98	51.34 ± 4.5
Pre-operative Injury knee	40.89 ± 2.89	40.71 ± 4.11
At 6 months follow-up	49.22 ± 2.23	49.22 ± 2.23	0.9
At 1 year follow-up	51.92 ± 20.7	51.37 ± 3.41	0.5

Anterior drawers test, Lachman's test and pivot shift test were done preoperatively during an examination of the knee joint to confirm the diagnosis and assess the amount of translation. postoperatively at 1year follow-up anterior drawers test, Lachman's test and pivot shift test were repeated to check for anterior translation. (Tables 5–8)

Table 5.

Pre and post operative donor site morbidity of ankle plantar flexion and eversion in PL group after 6 months and 1 year.

Ankle Plantar Flexion strength
Pre-operative Normal limb	-	33.14 ± 1.52
Pre-operative Injury limb	-	31.76 ± 1.63
At 6 months follow-up	-	30.91 ± 1.26
At 1 year follow-up	-	32.62 ± 1.38
Ankle Plantar Eversion strength
Pre-operative Normal knee	-	21.97 ± 1.35
Pre-operative Injury knee	-	21.13 ± 1.34
At 6 months followup	-	20.26 ± 1.36
At 1 year followup	-	21.58 ± 1.14

Table 6.

Anterior drawer test analysis in HTS and PL group pre and post-operative follow-up after 1 year.

	Hamstrings		Peroneus Longus
Anterior Drawer Test (ADT)	Pre-operative	1 year follow up	Pre-operative	1 year follow up
Grade 0 (1–2mm)	0	14	0	17
Grade I (3–5mm)	0	7	0	6
Grade II (6–10mm)	12	1	12	0
Grade III (>10mm)	10	0	11	0

Table 7.

Lachman's test analysis in HTS and PL group pre and post-operative follow up after 1 year.

	Hamstrings		Peroneus Longus
Lachman’s Test (LT)	Pre- operative	1 year follow up	Pre- operative	1 year follow up
Grade 0 (1–2mm)	0	13	0	18
Grade I (3–5mm)	0	8	0	5
Grade II (6–10mm)	14	1	10	0
Grade III (>10mm)	8	0	13	0

Table 8.

Pivot shift test analysis in HTS and PL group

	Hamstrings		Peroneus longus
Pivot shift test (PST)	Pre-operative	1 year follow up	Pre-operative	1 year follow up
Equal	5	17	6	19
Glide I	8	5	3	4
Clunk II	6	0	8	0
Gross III	3	0	6	0

Discussion

Various studies reported good results after ACL reconstruction with the peroneus longus tendon, in terms of both functional outcome and knee stability.^12–14 Our study supports that assertion. In this study functional outcome and donor site morbidity comparing PL and HST tendon autograft were evaluated which showed that the PL tendon can be used in single-bundle ACL reconstruction with good results at 1-year follow up.

Another study by Angthong mentioned donor site morbidities like reduced peak torque eversion and inversion, decreased ankle function and concerns about ankle stability in the PL group.¹² But in our study, the mean ankle eversion strength showed no statistical difference at the donor site compared to contralateral normal ankle eversion. No patients had any ankle instability or reduced ankle movements. The ankle function was good in the PL group (AOFAS mean was 96.43 ± 3.13) at the end of 1 year. A similar study was done by S. Rhatomy et al. also showed similar results in AOFAS score at end of 1 year without significantly affecting the ankle functions.⁴

A study by Kerimoglu, PL has a minor effect in carrying the arch of the foot. Usually, PB and abductor digiti minimi maintain lateral longitudinal arch. Abductor hallucis, tibialis posterior and flexor pollicis longus look after medial longitudinal arch. Adductor pollicis and tibialis posterior maintain the transverse arch of the foot.¹³ According to the literature, PL has no appreciable influence in maintaining the arch and stability of the foot. In our study, we have observed that none of the patients had ankle instability and loss of arch architecture at the end of 1 year

In our study, Anterior kneeling pain was also found in about 27% of patients after hamstring tendon harvesting. A similar study done by S.Rhatomy et al. observed 6% of patients developed anterior kneeling pain.⁴ This symptom can be apprehension in patients where the daily routine includes kneeling on the ground as part of their religious practice which could lead to significant morbidity and reduced quality of life.

A study by Adachi N stated that the patients who underwent HST graft for ACL reconstruction, more loss of active knee flexion angle was observed and more peak torque angle was shifted to a shallow angle, suggesting that the HST strength may be weaker at the deep flexion angle.¹⁵ In this study, we have seen that knee flexion strength reduced in the HST group at the end of 1 year compared to the normal contralateral knee which could be attributed to sacrificing the HST knee flexion component. But in the PT group, there was no decrease in knee flexion strength but instead, knee flexion improved.

Rhatomy et al. used a hand dynamometer for measuring plantar flexion and eversion in patients who underwent PL tendon usage for ACL reconstruction. They observed that at end of 6 months there was no difference in the plantar flexion and eversion strength compared to the normal contralateral side.¹¹ In this study, there was no statistical difference in plantar flexion and eversion strength of the donor side ankle compared to the normal contralateral ankle at the end of 1-year follow-up. This evidence shows that PL can be used as a promising graft with no effect on ankle eversion and plantar flexion power.

PL tendon along with PB tends to dispense pressure over the forefoot.¹¹ Karanikas found no difference in isokinetic strength for first ray plantar flexion of donor versus contralateral normal ankle.¹⁶ In this study, similar observations were noted. This could be probably because of intact PB and tenodesis of distal stump of PL to PB. Otis et al. stated that PB is a more efficient evertor at the ankle joint and continues to be even after PL is harvested, and supports the usage of PL as a graft for ACL reconstruction.¹⁷

A study on 25 patients to evaluate functional outcomes after ACL reconstruction using a triple-layered PL graft. Khajotia observed that there was an improvement in IKDC score with no patients having ankle dysfunction but 2 patients had pressure pain at the graft harvest site at the end of 6 months.¹⁸

A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcome following hamstrings and peroneus longus autograft in ACL reconstruction in 925 patients. Jinshen et al. observed that Lysholm and IKDC score has improved better in peroneus longus group than hamstrings group. There was no difference in FADI but minimally reduced AOFAS score in peroneus longus group. He concluded that peroneus longus can be an ideal graft and can circumvent the complication of imbalance between quadriceps-hamstrings which happens following harvesting the hamstrings tendon.¹⁹

There was no limitation of ankle eversion and first ray plantar flexion with good ankle motor strength. AOFAS analysis was 100% at end of 1 year and Wiradiputra et al. concluded that peroneus longus can be used as the first option in ACL reconstruction.²⁰

A 2 year follow-up of patients who underwent peroneus longus graft for ACL reconstruction by Sholahuddin observed that excellent IKDC, MCS, Tegner-Lysholm score, AOFAS, FADI scores. Good graft diameter was harvested, thigh hypotrophy was less, with excellent ankle function and a better serial hop test result was achieved.²¹

Kusumastutia have done an observational analytical study retrospectively in 75 patients for 1 year. There was an improvement in mean IKDC, MCS, Tegner-Lysholm score, KSS (function), AOFAS and FADI scores at the end of 1 year compared to pre-operative. Eversion and plantar flexion strength were not significantly different between contralateral normal ankle and donor site. 3 patients had neuropraxia in the HST group and concluded that peroneus longus can be used as a promising graft for ACL reconstruction.²²

Various studies have shown the ability of peroneus longus usage in ACL reconstruction as an alternative promising graft with minimal or no donor site morbidity apart from other available grafts. However, further studies could focus on measurements of ankle stability and strength and correlate them with functional scores after harvesting the peroneus longus tendon.

Limitations of the study include, ligament laxity was checked manually which can have inter-observer bias. Instead, a KT1000 arthrometer could be used. Muscle strength measurement with an isokinetic dynamometer would have been more accurate.

Conclusion

PLT has a greater ultimate tensile load, more thickness and length, less graft harvesting time, and almost no donor site morbidity and has a good functional outcome of the knee, making it an effective and safe autograft option. So, PL autograft can be a promising graft of choice in the reconstruction of the ACL and can be much more beneficial in simultaneous multi-ligament injury repair in the knee joint.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Author’s contribution

V and S were responsible for enrolling the patients generating the research question and analysing the scores.

AC was responsible for patient's follow-up, calculation of scores and statistical analysis.

A contributed in analysing the scores and final preparation of the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Chandra Avinash

T. Adarsh

References

Musahl

Karlsson

. Anterior cruciate ligament tear. N Engl J Med 2019 Jun 13; 380: 2341–2348.

Corry

Webb

Clingeleffer

, et al. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A comparison of patellar tendon autograft and four-strand hamstring tendon autograft. Am J Sports Med 1999 Aug; 27: 444–454.

Bonamo

Krinick

Sporn

. Rupture of the patellar ligament after use of its central third for anterior cruciate reconstruction. A report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984 Oct; 66: 1294–1297.

Rhatomy

Asikin

AIZ

Wardani

, et al. Peroneus longus autograft can be recommended as a superior graft to hamstring tendon in single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 2019 Nov; 27: 3552–3559.

Rhatomy

Hartoko

Setyawan

, et al. Single bundle ACL reconstruction with peroneus longus tendon graft: 2-years follow-up. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020 May; 11: S332–S336.

Shi

F-D

Hess

Zuo

J-Z

, et al. Peroneus longus tendon autograft is a safe and effective alternative for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg 2019 Aug; 32: 804–811.

Zhao

Huangfu

. The biomechanical and clinical application of using the anterior half of the peroneus longus tendon as an autograft source. Am J Sports Med 2012 Mar; 40: 662–671.

Buckinx

Croisier

J-L

Reginster

J-Y

, et al. Reliability of muscle strength measures obtained with a hand-held dynamometer in an elderly population. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2017 May; 37: 332–340.

Kelln

McKeon

Gontkof

, et al. Hand-held dynamometry: reliability of lower extremity muscle testing in healthy, physically active,young adults. J Sport Rehabil 2008 May; 17: 160–170.

10.

Thorborg

Bandholm

Hölmich

. Hip- and knee-strength assessments using a hand-held dynamometer with external belt-fixation are inter-tester reliable. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 2013 Mar; 21: 550–555.

11.

Rhatomy

Wicaksono

Soekarno

, et al. Eversion and first ray plantarflexion muscle strength in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a peroneus longus tendon graft. Orthop J Sports Med 2019 Sep 27; 7: 2325967119872462.

12.

Angthong

Chernchujit

Apivatgaroon

, et al. The anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the peroneus longus tendon: a biomechanical and clinical evaluation of the donor ankle morbidity. J Med Assoc Thail Chotmaihet Thangphaet 2015 Jun; 98: 555–560.

13.

Kerimoğlu

Aynaci

Saraçoğlu

, et al. [Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the peroneus longus tendon]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2008 Feb; 42: 38–43.

14.

Sasetyo

Rhatomy

Pontoh

. Peroneus longus tendon: The promising graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. 2017.

15.

Adachi

Ochi

Uchio

, et al. Harvesting hamstring tendons for ACL reconstruction influences postoperative hamstring muscle performance. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003 Nov; 123: 460–465.

16.

Karanikas

Arampatzis

Brüggemann

. Motor task and muscle strength followed different adaptation patterns after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009 Mar; 45: 37–45.

17.

Otis

Deland

Lee

, et al. Peroneus brevis is a more effective evertor than peroneus longus. Foot Ankle Int 2004 Apr; 25: 242–246.

18.

Khajotia

Chauhan

Sethia

, et al. Functional outcome of arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament tear using peroneus longus tendon autograft. Int J Res Orthop 2018 Oct 24; 4: 898.

19.

Tang

Ernst

, et al. Peroneus longus tendon autograft has functional outcomes comparable to hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 2021 Sep; 29: 2869–2879.

20.

Wiradiputra

Aryana

GNW

. Peroneus longus tendon graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a case report and review of literature. Int J Surg Case Rep 2021 Jun; 83: 106028.

21.

Single bundle ACL reconstruction with peroneus longus tendon graft: 2-years follow-up - PubMed [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 5]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32523289/.

22.

Kusumastutia

Rukmoyo

Rhatomy

, et al. Anterior cruciatel ligament reconstruction with peroneus longus tendon autograft: functional outcome and donor site morbidity. Orthop J Sports Med 2020 May 29; 8: 2325967120S00084.

Is Peroneus longus autograft a better alternative to the Hamstring autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? – A randomised control study

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Outcomes

Methods

Arthroscopic procedure

Rehabilitation

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Author’s contribution

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References