In this study, within the range of 7.0 to 9.0 mm, there was a 0.82 times lower likelihood of being a revision case with every 0.5-mm incremental increase in graft diameter.

PurposeNewer fixation devices for hamstring (HS) autograft have been introduced over the years, yet the impact of these devices on ACLR outcomes requiring surgical intervention remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation after HS autograft ACLR according to various femoral‐tibial fixation methods. MethodsA cohort study was conducted using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry. Primary isolated unilateral ACLR patients who received a HS autograft were identified (2007–2014). Fixation devices were categorized as crosspin, interference, suspensory, or combination (defined as more than one fixation device used on the same side) and femoral‐tibial fixation groups used in more than 500 ACLR were evaluated. Cox proportional‐hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between femoral‐tibial fixation method and outcomes while adjusting for confounders. Results6,593 primary ACLR were included. Four femoral‐tibial fixation groups had more than 500 ACLR: suspensory–interference (n = 3004, 45.6%), interference–interference (n = 1659, 25.2%), suspensory–combination (n = 1103, 16.7%), and crosspin–interference (n = 827, 12.5%). After adjusting for covariates, revision risk was lower for crosspin–interference (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29–0.65) and interference–interference (HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.41–0.95) methods compared to the suspensory–interference. In contrast, reoperation risk was higher for crosspin–interference (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.37–3.32) and suspensory–combination (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.04–2.69) methods compared to suspensory–interference. ConclusionsACLR using HS autograft appears to have the lowest risk of aseptic revision when crosspin or interference fixation is used on the femoral side and is coupled with an interference screw on the tibial side. Level of evidenceIII.

Level III.