Is there significant regeneration of the hamstring tendons after harvest for ACL reconstruction? A systematic review of literature
Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma, ISSN: 0976-5662, Vol: 16, Page: 208-218
2021
- 14Citations
- 26Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations14
- Citation Indexes14
- 14
- Captures26
- Readers26
- 26
Review Description
Regeneration potential of Hamstring tendons after harvest assumes significant clinical relevance as its use has become widespread today. Methods which best assess the regeneration, extent and type of regeneration, plus issues related to functional loss are important for the surgeon to know. This review looks at the literature to find answers to the above questions. To summarize the evidence in support of hamstring tendon regeneration, and the most appropriate modality for evaluation of regeneration. Additionally, to evaluate the regeneration in terms of complete or partial, extent and its impact on strength deficit and functional outcomes. We did a systematic review of literature through specified search engines and identified 30 of 285 studies to be relevant (19 prospective and 11 retrospective). Evaluation of above data suggests tissue regeneration at harvest sites does occur (78.9% of semitendinosus and 42.7% of gracilis tendons), but this regeneration is variable. No established definition of regeneration exists; MRI is an adequate tool to identify regeneration, while biopsy is confirmative. USG is a cost-effective screening method and can document distal progress of regenerate. Semitendinosus and gracilis tendons regenerate at different rates and extents, and often fuse together, but there is no evidence to state that one regenerates better than the other. Proximal retraction of the muscle-tendon junction occurs, along with some atrophy, which affects function to a variable extent. Strength deficits may persist, but they may not convert to significant functional deficits. There is variable hamstring regeneration after harvest, with poorly defined definition of “ regeneration ”. Some changes in the muscle itself, abnormal distal insertion and absence of regeneration in some are documented, along with strength deficits. Although overall functional deficits have been reported to be minimal, a definite change in the anatomy of the medial hamstrings is a factor to be kept in consideration. More information is needed about the long-term consequences.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0976566221001326; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.02.011; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85101058428&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33680834; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0976566221001326; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.02.011
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know