Quadriceps tendon autograft with or without bone block have comparable clinical outcomes, complications and revision rate for ACL reconstruction: a systematic review.

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review is to report complications, graft failure, fixation methods, rehabilitation protocol, clinical and patient-reported outcomes, and return to sports with the use of quadriceps tendon graft with the bone block (QT-B) and without bone block (QT-S). Methods: According to the PRISMA guidelines a comprehensive search was performed across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception until April 2022. Only prospective studies using quadriceps tendon autograft with a minimum of 20 patients were considered for inclusion. The outcome measures extracted from the studies were the KT-1000, Lysholm score, Subjective and Objective IKDC, Tegner, Marx Score, complications, failures and/or revision surgery, and rate of return to sports. Cochrane risk of bias and MINORS tool were used for the risk of bias assessment of all included studies. Results: A total of 13 studies were included, consisting of 5 randomized controlled trials, 6 cohort studies, 1 case–control and 1 case series. A total of 484 patients received QT-S in 6 studies of which 224 (46.2%) were males and 212 (43.8%) females with a mean age of 21.5 ± 7.5 (range 14–58). While 243 patients received QT-B in 7 studies of which 167 (68.7%) were males and 76 (31.3%) females with a mean age of 28.9 ± 4.5 (range: 18–49). The studies analyzed had a mean MINORS score of 14.6 (range, 12–19). Both QT-B and QT-S for ACL reconstruction reported satisfactory results in terms of patient-reported outcome measures. Although, a slightly higher anterior laxity was found with the QT-S than with the QT-B. Conclusion: Quadriceps tendon with a bone block (QT-B) or without bone block (QT-S) for ACL reconstruction is supported by current literature. Both grafts are safe and viable options for ACL reconstruction with comparable clinical outcomes, complications and revision rates. Level of evidence: Level IV. Registration: PROSPERO-CRD42022347134; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]