The Size of Residual Patella Tendon Defect Following Bone-Patella Tendon-Bone Autograft Harvest Does Not Affect Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Consequences of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) utilizing the patellar tendon (PT) autograft include a residual defect in the PT and the potential for donor site morbidity, such as anterior knee pain and difficulty kneeling. The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the presence and size of PT defects following ACLR and (2) to determine if there is an association with knee pain and function. Patients who underwent ACLR with PT autograft by two surgeons between 2011 and 2023 were identified. One surgeon routinely reapproximated the PT harvest site with suture, and the other left the tendon open while closing the overlying paratenon. Included patients were at least 1 year postoperative and 13 years or older at the time of surgery. Patients underwent ultrasound evaluation of the operative knee by an independent sonographer, measuring residual PT defect width and depth. International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation surveys were collected. Regression analysis determined correlations between defect size and knee outcomes. Eighty-one subjects met the criteria and completed the ultrasound and surveys. A PT defect was present in all patients at a mean follow-up of 2.97 years (1.0–9.6 years). Mean percent residual defect was 36.5 ± 17.5% of the original harvest width (mean: 10.3 mm), with a mean defect width of 3.8 ± 1.8 mm. Mean percent residual defect was significantly greater in the 57 patients who had the graft site left open (41.4 ± 13.5%) compared to the 24 patients who had the graft site reapproximated (26.1 ± 21.1%; p < 0.001). While 44.4% of patients reported moderate to extreme difficulty kneeling, it was not correlated with defect size. Patient-reported outcome scores were not correlated with defect size. A PT defect was present in 100% of patients even up to 9 years postoperatively. Defect width did not correlate with knee pain or the ability to kneel. Repeat harvesting of the PT for subsequent ACLR should be considered with caution.

Publication History

Received: 05 October 2024

Accepted: 19 June 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
20 June 2025

Article published online:
03 July 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• References

• 1 Wang LZ, Liu AH, Wen DJ, Zhou YT. Effects of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on clinical outcomes associated with total knee arthroplasty: A protocol of retrospective analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99 (25) e20767
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 2 Frank RM, Mascarenhas R, Haro M. et al. Closure of patellar tendon defect in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (02) 329-338
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 3 Kunze KN, Moran J, Polce EM, Pareek A, Strickland SM, Williams III RJ. Lower donor site morbidity with hamstring and quadriceps tendon autograft compared with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (08) 3339-3352
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 4 Kartus J, Movin T, Papadogiannakis N, Christensen LR, Lindahl S, Karlsson J. A radiographic and histologic evaluation of the patellar tendon after harvesting its central third. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28 (02) 218-226
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 5 Koseoglu K, Memis A, Argin M, Arkun R. MRI evaluation of patellar tendon defect after harvesting its central third. Eur J Radiol 2004; 50 (03) 292-295
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 6 Yazdanshenas H, Madadi F, Madadi F, Washington III ER, Jones K, Shamie AN. Patellar tendon donor-site healing during six and twelve months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop 2015; 12 (04) 179-183
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 7 Rahardja R, Love H, Clatworthy MG, Young SW. Comparison of knee pain and difficulty with kneeling between patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study from the New Zealand ACL registry. Am J Sports Med 2023; 51 (13) 3464-3472
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 8 Kartus J, Lindahl S, Köhler K, Sernert N, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J. Serial magnetic resonance imaging of the donor site after harvesting the central third of the patellar tendon. A prospective study of 37 patients after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1999; 7 (01) 20-24
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 9 Bernicker JP, Haddad JL, Lintner DM, DiLiberti TC, Bocell JR. Patellar tendon defect during the first year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: appearance on serial magnetic resonance imaging. Arthroscopy 1998; 14 (08) 804-809
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 10 Nixon RG, SeGall GK, Sax SL, Cain TE, Tullos HS. Reconstitution of the patellar tendon donor site after graft harvest. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; (317) 162-171
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 11 Järvelä T, Paakkala T, Kannus P, Toivanen J, Järvinen M. Ultrasonographic and power Doppler evaluation of the patellar tendon ten years after harvesting its central third for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: comparison of patients without or with anterior knee pain. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (01) 39-46
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 12 Wipfler B, Donner S, Zechmann CM, Springer J, Siebold R, Paessler HH. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon: a prospective comparative study with 9-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (05) 653-665
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 13 Rousseau R, Labruyere C, Kajetanek C, Deschamps O, Makridis KG, Djian P. Complications after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and their relation to the type of graft: a prospective study of 958 cases. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (11) 2543-2549
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 14 Peebles LA, Akamefula RA, Aman ZS. et al. Following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft, the incidence of anterior knee pain ranges from 5.4% to 48.4% and the incidence of kneeling pain ranges from 4.0% to 75.6%: a systematic review of level I studies. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2024; 6 (02) 100902
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 15 Kartus J, Stener S, Lindahl S, Engström B, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J. Factors affecting donor-site morbidity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1997; 5 (04) 222-228
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 16 Breitfuss H, Fröhlich R, Povacz P, Resch H, Wicker A. The tendon defect after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the midthird patellar tendon–a problem for the patellofemoral joint?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1996; 3 (04) 194-198
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 17 Cerullo G, Puddu G, Gianní E, Damiani A, Pigozzi F. Anterior cruciate ligament patellar tendon reconstruction: it is probably better to leave the tendon defect open!. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1995; 3 (01) 14-17
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 18 Brandsson S, Faxén E, Eriksson BI. et al. Closing patellar tendon defects after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: absence of any benefit. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1998; 6 (02) 82-87
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 19 Fu FH, Bennett CH, Ma CB, Menetrey J, Lattermann C. Operative Procedures and Clinical Correlations. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part II. Operative procedures and clinical correlations. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28 (01) 124-130
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 20 Seijas R, Ferré-Aniorte A, Rius M, Laiz P, Cugat R. Evolution of the patellar tendon size after bone-patelar tendon-bone ACL reconstruction. Apunts Sports Med 2022; 57 (215) 100386
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 21 Schoderbek Jr RJ, Treme GP, Miller MD. Bone-patella tendon-bone autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med 2007; 26 (04) 525-547
  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 22 Yang G, Rothrauff BB, Tuan RS. Tendon and ligament regeneration and repair: clinical relevance and developmental paradigm. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 2013; 99 (03) 203-222
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 23 de Almeida AM, Demange MK, Sobrado MF, Rodrigues MB, Pedrinelli A, Hernandez AJ. Patellar tendon healing with platelet-rich plasma: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (06) 1282-1288
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 24 Shelbourne KD, Trumper RV. Preventing anterior knee pain after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1997; 25 (01) 41-47
  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar