PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 17, 2026Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy0 citations

Increased residual anterior knee laxity at one year is associated with a dose‐dependent increase in graft re‐rupture risk following hamstring autograft ACL reconstruction in athletes

View Full Paper
TETunay ErdenMAMuzaffer AğırMKM. Enes Kayaalp

Key Points

  • To evaluate the relationship between 1-year post-operative anterior knee laxity and graft re-rupture risk following ACL reconstruction.
  • Retrospective cohort study of 1011 athletes who underwent primary ACLR with hamstring tendon autograft.
  • Anterior knee laxity quantified using KT-1000 at a mean of 12.1 months post-operatively.
  • Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model used to assess associations with graft re-rupture risk.
  • Patients with graft re-rupture exhibited higher KT-1000 side-to-side difference (3.5 mm vs. 2.1 mm; p < 0.001).
  • Each 1-mm increase in KT-1000 SSD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.97 (95% CI 2.5–3.5).
  • Laxity categories showed increased re-rupture risk: adjusted HR of 1.76 (3–5 mm) and 8.85 (>5 mm) compared to <3 mm (both p < 0.001).

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Residual anterior knee laxity following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been associated with inferior subjective outcomes and an increased risk of revision surgery; however, its prognostic value for predicting subsequent graft re‐rupture remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the association between KT‐1000–measured 1‐year post‐operative anterior knee laxity and graft re‐rupture after ACLR. We hypothesised that increased residual anterior knee laxity at 1 year post‐operatively would be associated with a higher risk of graft re‐rupture in a dose‐dependent manner. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 1011 amateur and professional athletes who underwent primary ACLR with hamstring tendon autograft (HTA) between 2005 and 2024 by a single surgeon using a standardised surgical technique. Patients undergoing revision ACLR, multiligament reconstruction, or any lateral extra‐articular augmentation procedure were excluded. Anterior knee laxity was quantified using the KT‐1000 arthrometer at a mean of 12.1 ± 1.3 months post‐operatively. A landmark time‐to‐event design was applied, with follow‐up starting from the KT‐1000 assessment to minimise immortal time bias and to focus on anterior knee laxity after biological graft maturation. The primary exposure was KT‐1000 side‐to‐side difference (SSD), analysed as both a continuous variable and using clinically relevant thresholds (5 mm). Associations between post‐operative laxity and graft re‐rupture, adjusting for demographic, surgical, and activity‐related factors were assessed using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Secondary analyses evaluated the relationship between KT‐1000 laxity, return‐to‐play status, and post‐operative activity level. Results Patients who experienced graft re‐rupture had significantly greater post‐operative KT‐1000 SSD compared with those without re‐rupture (3.5 ± 1.3 mm vs. 2.1 ± 0.9 mm; p 5 mm compared with <3 mm. Post‐operative 1‐year KT‐1000 anterior knee laxity was not significantly associated with return‐to‐play status (odds ratio, 0.84 per 1‐mm increase; 95% CI, 0.6–1.1; p = 0.28), but was modestly associated with lower post‐operative Tegner activity level ( p < 0.001). Conclusion KT‐1000–measured post‐operative anterior knee laxity at 1 year post‐operatively was independently associated with the risk of subsequent graft re‐rupture after HTA ACLR in athletic patients. These findings suggest that residual laxity may serve as a useful risk stratification tool, rather than a deterministic predictor of failure, and should be interpreted in the context of overall clinical and biomechanical assessment. Level of Evidence Level III.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Erden et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a095b5d7880e6d24efe11b7https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.70447
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper