Skip to main content

The prognosis of iatrogenic saphenous nerve injuries during hamstring tendon harvesting in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the long-term outcomes of saphenous nerve (SN) injuries from hamstring tendon harvesting during ACL reconstruction, focusing on clinical results and patient satisfaction after at least two years. Additionally, it investigates the incidence, recovery patterns, and impact of these injuries on functional outcomes, daily activities, and ACL re-rupture rates immediately post-surgery and at final follow-up.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review was conducted on patients who had undergone ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon grafts at a single institution between January 2015 and January 2020. The incidence of SN injuries was assessed immediately after surgery and at final follow-up. Additionally, the recovery rate and time were evaluated, and the impact of these injuries on functional outcomes was measured using the Lysholm Knee Score (LKS) and patient-reported effects on daily activities.

Results

Of the 159 patients analyzed, iatrogenic SN injuries were initially observed in 87 (54.7%) patients post-ACLR. By the final follow-up, paresthesia had resolved in 36 (22.6%) patients within an average of 11.1 months. Persistent SN injuries were recorded in 51 (32.1%) patients, affecting various extents of the infrapatellar branch (IPBSN) and the sartorial branch (SBSN) of the saphenous nerve. Patients with persistent SN injuries experienced a significant impact on daily activities and had lower LKS scores compared to those without injuries or with recovered injuries. Furthermore, a higher re-rupture rate was associated with persistent SN injuries.

Conclusions

The study finds that SN injuries during hamstring graft harvesting for ACL reconstruction are common, with a significant portion of patients experiencing persistent sensory deficits for at least two years postoperatively. These injuries are observed to adversely affect patient satisfaction and functional outcomes and to increase the re-rupture rate.

Introduction

Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a well-established orthopedic procedure for symptomatic patients with ACL ruptures. The goal of managing ACL insufficiency is to restore knee function, primarily to allow patients to return to pre-injury activity levels [1, 2]. This can potentially prevent the onset and progression of knee osteoarthritis, achieved through early surgery and postoperative rehabilitation essential for restoring knee joint stability and function [3, 4]. Many ACL reconstruction techniques utilize autografts due to their effectiveness in restoring joint stability [5]. Various autologous graft options are available, including bone-patellar tendon-bone, hamstring tendons (HT), peroneus longus tendon, and the quadriceps tendon. Each grafting option has its own advantages and disadvantages, making it challenging to reach a consensus on the optimal graft option [6,7,8,9]. However, hamstring tendons are the most commonly used autografts for ACLR [9] due to their ease of harvesting, superior biomechanical strength compared to the native ACL, straightforward preparation, and reliable fixation methods [6,7,8,9,10].

After passing through the adductor canal, the saphenous nerve, a terminal cutaneous branch of the femoral nerve, divides into two main branches: the infrapatellar branch and the sartorial branch. The infrapatellar branch (IPBSN) extends medially to the knee, providing sensory innervation to the anteromedial aspect of the knee. The sartorial branch (SBSN) runs alongside the great saphenous vein, innervating the medial part of the leg down to the ankle [11,12,13]. Due to their close proximity to the surgical field, iatrogenic injuries to these nerve branches may occur during tendon harvesting, anteromedial portal placement, and tibial tunnel drilling, particularly when harvesting hamstring tendons [14,15,16]. The incidence of sensory nerve (SN) injuries after ACLR with HT grafts is highly variable, reported to range from 0 to 88% in the literature [17, 18].

The saphenous nerve is purely sensory; thus, functional outcomes are generally not affected by the loss of sensation, except in terms of reduced patient satisfaction [19,20,21,22,23]. Despite this, the long-term prognosis of these injuries is poorly documented [19, 24], and the extent of recovery over time remains unclear. This lack of detailed understanding prompts a need for more focused research, particularly regarding the impact of SN injuries on long-term functional outcomes. This study hypothesizes that saphenous nerve (SN) injuries during hamstring tendon harvesting for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction may decrease patient satisfaction and functional results. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term prognosis of iatrogenic saphenous nerve (SN) injuries incurred during hamstring tendon harvesting for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and to assess their impact on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction at a minimum of two years postoperatively. Additionally, the secondary aim is to determine the incidence, recovery rate, and patterns of SN injuries immediately after surgery and at the final follow-up. This study will also investigate the effects of these injuries on functional outcomes, patient-reported impact on daily activities, and their relationship with ACL re-rupture rates.

Materials and methods

Patients and study design

A retrospective review of digital medical records was conducted to identify all patients who underwent ACLR using a hamstring tendon graft at our institution between January 2015 and January 2020. Patient charts, operation notes, medical records, and notes taken during follow-up visits were collected from the institutional patient database. Patients with incomplete medical records, those who did not complete the final follow-up, revision ACLR cases, and those who underwent ACLR with grafts other than hamstring tendons were excluded from the study. Additionally, patients with less than two years of follow-up were excluded (Fig. 1). The research was conducted by the ethical principles outlined in the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent revisions. The institutional review board approved the study protocol (Approval date/issue: 22.12.2020/20.06–390).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of Patient Selection and Follow-Up in ACLR Study

Hamstring tendon harvesting technique

In all cases, ACLR was performed using a thigh tourniquet under spinal anesthesia. After confirming ACL rupture through diagnostic arthroscopy, the hamstring tendons, specifically the Gracilis and Semitendinosus (ST) tendons, were harvested. A 4–5 cm oblique incision was made, the sartorial fascia was cut following soft tissue dissection, and the Gracilis and Semitendinosus (ST) tendons were identified, sutured, released from their attachments, and harvested with a closed tendon stripper. Anatomic graft placement was achieved by drilling the femoral tunnel through the anteromedial portal and the tibial tunnel using a 55-degree tibial guide. The graft was secured with an EndoButton on the femoral side, a bioabsorbable interference screw, and a titanium U staple on the tibial side.

Clinical assessments

Patients were assessed at two main time points: immediately after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) to observe the initial incidence of saphenous nerve (SN) injuries, and at the final follow-up (mean 58.9 months postoperatively, range 25–92 months) to evaluate recovery rates and the ongoing impact of SN injuries on functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. A thorough clinical examination was performed on all patients at the final follow-up. The length of the incision was measured from the incision scar. Instability was evaluated using the Lachman and anterior drawer tests. In cases where patients presented with positive clinical findings and complaints of instability, an MRI was performed to confirm ACL re-rupture. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Lysholm Knee Score (LKS), which was graded as follows: 95–100 points (‘excellent’), 84–94 points (‘good’), 65–83 points (‘fair’), and ≤ 64 points (‘poor’) [25,26,27]. The sensory examination involved a light touch test over the SN dermatome with a blunt needle. Patients experiencing postoperative paresthesia were asked about the impact of numbness on their daily activities. The degree of numbness was categorized by the patients as none, mild, moderate, or severe.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics for categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation and range. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to test normality. Comparative analysis between independent groups was performed using the ANOVA and chi-square tests. A value of p < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.

Results

A total of 159 patients (16 female, 143 male) with a mean age of 33.8 ± 8.9 years (range 19–54 years) were included in the study. The right knee was affected in 75 (47.2%) patients, while the left knee was affected in 84 (52.8%). The mean follow-up duration was 58.9 ± 16.7 months (range 25–92 months). Iatrogenic SN injury was observed in 87 (54.7%) patients immediately after ACLR. By the final follow-up, paresthesia had resolved in 36 (22.6%) patients within an average of 11.1 ± 7.4 months (range 1–24 months). SN injury remained consistent for at least two years in 51 (32.1%) patients. Among these patients, involvement of the isolated IPBSN dermatome (Zone 1) was noted in 29 (18.2%), the isolated SBSN dermatome (Zone 2) in 42 (26.4%), and both dermatomes in 16 (10.1%) (Fig. 2). Recovery rates were similar across SN injury sites (Zone 1: 55.2%, Zone 2: 35.7%, Combined: 31.3%; p = n.s).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Illustration showing the rate of initial SN injury and the final SN injury in the study population

Out of the 87 patients with initial nerve injury, 6.9% reported a severe impact, 30.8% a moderate impact, and 17.0% no impact on their daily life due to paresthesia. Accompanying meniscal injuries (lateral, medial, or combined) were present in 67.3% of patients and were treated either with partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair. The incidence of meniscal injuries was comparable among the persistent, recovered, and no injury groups (p = n.s).

Of the 159 patients, 19 (11.9%) exhibited clinical findings consistent with re-rupture and were excluded due to low LKS secondary to re-rupture to avoid bias. The remaining 140 patients with intact grafts were analyzed to determine the impact of paresthesia on functional outcomes. Of these, 68 (48.5%) had no SN injury, 34 (24.2%) recovered from SN injury, and 38 (27.1%) had persistent SN injury. LKS scores were similar between the uninjured and recovered groups, both demonstrating significantly higher scores than the group with persistent injury (Table 1). Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the three groups. A significantly higher re-rupture rate was observed in patients with persistent SN injury (p = 0.001) (Table 2).

Table 1 Comparison of clinical and functional results of iatrogenic SN injury among intact ACL graft
Table 2 Comparison of re-rupture according to SN injury at the final follow-up

Discussion

This study demonstrated that iatrogenic saphenous nerve (SN) injury was a common complication following ACLR with hamstring tendon autografts, occurring in over half of patients initially. Although a substantial proportion of patients experienced resolution of paresthesia within an average of 11.1 months, a significant number (32.1%) continued to have persistent SN injury at two years post-operatively. These persistent injuries significantly affected patient outcomes, with those experiencing unresolved SN injuries reporting substantially lower Lysholm Knee Scores compared to those without injuries or with resolved injuries. This underscored the profound impact of these nerve injuries on long-term patient satisfaction and functional performance. Notably, the recovery rate was not influenced by the specific site of SN injury.

According to the current study, iatrogenic SN injuries were observed in nearly half of the patients (54.7%) despite using an oblique incision. However, by the end of at least two years of follow-up, approximately 40% of those who initially sustained SN injuries had recovered, reducing the overall rate of persistent SN injuries to 32.1%. This suggests that some injuries may be temporary and likely represent neuropraxia. The average recovery period was observed to be one year, although recovery could take up to two years for some patients.

Although the rate of SN injuries at specific follow-up visits is reported in many studies, consecutive follow-ups and recovery are documented in very few [13, 19, 22,23,24, 28,29,30,31]. Comparing the data is challenging because follow-up times vary, and different incision and harvesting techniques are employed. Recovery rates are reported to range from 0 to 92% at various time points. It is suggested that recovery rates might increase over time; however, the literature presents contradictory data. A recovery rate of 65% at 6 months was reported by Sipahioglu et al. [28], whereas a recovery of 12.7% at an average follow-up of 32 months was reported by Mochizuki et al. [24]. Additionally, Papastergiou et al. [32] proposed that hypoesthesia remains permanent after one year; however, in the current study, recovery continued for up to two years. In light of the findings from previous studies and this study, predicting the timing of recovery is challenging. Reports of complete recovery are accompanied by studies documenting partial improvements and reductions in the area of sensory loss. It was reported by Mahmood et al. [22] that the area of numbness decreased from 43.4 cm^2 to 37.9 cm^2 within six months. Similarly, a significant narrowing of the numbness area at repeated follow-ups was demonstrated by Sipahioglu et al. [28] and Kjærgaard et al. [17].

Building upon previous research, the current study further revealed that both terminal branches of the saphenous nerve (SN)—the infrapatellar branch (IPBSN) and the sartorial branch (SBSN)—can be injured, either independently or in combination. This finding suggests that the injury site is not always directly correlated with the surgical dissection at the skin incision but may occur during tendon harvesting with the tendon stripper or during dissection of interconnections between hamstring tendons. While several studies in the literature have reported only IPBSN injuries, with no mention of SBSN injuries [17, 20,21,22,23,24, 28, 31,32,33,34,35,36,37], others have differentiated between the two but did not report combined injuries. A few studies, however, have documented both isolated and combined injuries.

In two previous studies with the largest number of patients examined, only IPBSN injury following HT graft harvesting was reported by both Papastergiou et al. [32] (230 patients) and Ochiai et al. [21] (123 patients). In contrast, Sharaby et al. explored the effects of vertical and oblique incisions on saphenous nerve (SN) injuries and identified 39 cases of SN injuries in a cohort of 84 patients. They noted that most of the sensory loss was localized to the IPBSN in 27 patients (69.2%), while the sartorial branch (SBSN) was affected in only 12 patients (30.8%), with no instances of combined injuries reported [19]. Whereas, a rate of 74% SN injuries with a vertical incision was reported by Sanders et al., with 14 (23%) having isolated SBSN injury, 12 (19%) having isolated IPBSN injury, and 20 (32%) having combined SBSN and IPBSN injuries [13].Considering the information in their anatomical dissection study and observed injury patterns, it was suggested that the IPBSN injury was closely related to the skin incision, but the tendon stripper was the cause of injury to the SBSN. Compared to the data in these studies, more isolated or combined total SBSN injuries were observed in our study. It is thought that the conflicting rates of injury reported in different studies are related to the variation of SN branches and tendon harvesting techniques.

While it has generally been reported that SN injuries do not affect clinical outcomes, they do decrease patient satisfaction [17, 21, 23, 28, 31]. Indeed, Musevi et al. noted that many patients were unaware of their numbness until it was clinically assessed [34], and Keyhani et al. observed that patients often disregard this condition [35]. In the present study, of the 87 patients with SN injuries, severe impact was reported by 6.9%, moderate impact by 30.8%, and no impact on daily life due to paresthesia by 17.0%. Moreover, LKS was found to be lower in patients with persistent numbness at the last follow-up visit compared to patients with no injury and those who had recovered. In addition, a significantly higher rate of re-rupture was found in patients with persistent SN. Dysesthesia, hypoesthesia, neuroma, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, anterior knee pain, and kneeling pain can all be caused by saphenous nerve injury. Patient satisfaction and quality of daily life can be negatively affected by these complications [20, 38]. Pain due to neuroma and instability due to loss of proprioception may occur after saphenous nerve injury in these patients [39, 40]. Therefore, full recovery of knee stability requires both surgical reconstruction and the restoration of proprioceptive control [41]. This is further supported by the fact that a significant proportion of patients with re-rupture in present study had SN injuries. Although SN injury is often described as a minor complication, the high rate of re-rupture observed suggests that it may not only induce hypoesthesia but also contribute to re-rupture as a major complication. However, this conclusion needs to be further supported by studies with a larger number of patients. Additionally, considering the multifactorial nature of re-rupture, other potential factors should be examined in detail.

Although the present study utilized an oblique incision, in line with recommendations aimed at minimizing the risk of saphenous nerve (SN) injuries [38, 40, 42,43,44,45,46,47], the incidence of such injuries remained notably high. This suggests that incision type alone may not fully protect against SN injury, as other factors likely contribute. While studies show oblique or horizontal incisions are generally safest as they follow the SN nerve’s natural path [40, 42, 43], and vertical incisions are discouraged due to increased risk [38, 45,46,47], differences in surgical techniques, anatomical variations among patients, and surgeon expertise can also influence outcomes [13, 48, 49]. Consequently, a multi-faceted approach is essential, incorporating meticulous surgical techniques, strategic patient positioning (such as the figure-of-four position) [48], and possibly alternative harvesting methods (e.g., employing a posteromedial or popliteal approach, or isolating the semitendinosus tendon for grafting) [18, 31, 50, 51]. These strategies could further diminish the occurrence of SN injuries and improve overall surgical outcomes.

Strengths of this study include a greater number of patients and a longer follow-up period than most similar research in the literature, which enhance its ability to track recovery effectively. Furthermore, it comprehensively analyzes all terminal branch injuries. Despite these strengths, this work is not without limitations; its retrospective design and reliance on patient self-reports for postoperative data could introduce recall bias. Nonetheless, patients underwent detailed examinations during the last follow-up visit, mitigating some concerns related to data accuracy.

The study concludes that iatrogenic saphenous nerve (SN) injuries are common after ACL reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts, affecting over half of the patients initially. Long-term, these injuries are linked to lower patient satisfaction and worse functional outcomes. These persistent injuries significantly impact quality of life and functional performance, underscoring the need for improved surgical techniques and post-operative management.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Maffulli N, Osti L. ACL stability, function, and arthritis: what have we been missing? Orthopedics. 2013;36(2):90–2. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20130122-02.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maffulli N. The early Versus Late Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Debate: history teaches us that we cannot use reason and evidence to Fight and Win Against conviction. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(9):2524–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.06.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Giordano L, Maffulli N, Carimati G, Morenghi E, Volpi P. Increased time to surgery after anterior cruciate ligament tear in female patients results in Greater Risk of Medial Meniscus tear: a study of 489 female patients. Arthroscopy. 2023;39(3):613–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.10.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ramjug S, Ghosh S, Walley G, Maffulli N. Isolated anterior cruciate ligament deficiency, knee scores and function. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74(5):643–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rittweger J, Maffulli N, Maganaris CN, Narici MV. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with a patella-tendon-bone graft may lead to a permanent loss of bone mineral content due to decreased patellar tendon stiffness. Med Hypotheses. 2005;64(6):1166–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2004.06.037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baawa-Ameyaw J, Plastow R, Begum FA, Kayani B, Jeddy H, Haddad F. Current concepts in graft selection for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6(9):808–15. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.210023.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Buerba RA, MD MHS, Boden SAMD, Lesniak BMD. (2021) Graft Selection in Contemporary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews: – 5(10) - e21.00230 https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00230.

  8. Lin KM, Boyle C, Marom N, Marx RG. Graft selection in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2020;28(2):41–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/JSA.0000000000000265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arnold MP, Calcei JG, Vogel N, Magnussen RA, Clatworthy M, Spalding T, Campbell JD, Bergfeld JA, Sherman SL, ACL Study Group. ACL Study Group survey reveals the evolution of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft choice over the past three decades. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(11):3871–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06443-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Piedade SR, Leite Arruda BP, de Vasconcelos RA, Parker DA, Maffulli N. Rehabilitation following surgical reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency: what has changed since the 1960s?-State of the art. J ISAKOS. 2023;8(3):153–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2022.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Patterson DC, Cirino CM, Gladstone JN. No safe zone: the anatomy of the saphenous nerve and its posteromedial branches. Knee. 2019;26(3):660–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2019.02.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dayan V, Cura L, Cubas S, Carriquiry G. Surgical anatomy of the saphenous nerve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(3):896–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.11.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanders B, Rolf R, McClelland W, Xerogeanes J. Prevalence of saphenous nerve injury after autogenous hamstring harvest: an anatomic and clinical study of sartorial branch injury. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(9):956–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2007.03.099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tifford CD, Spero L, Luke T, Plancher KD. The relationship of the infrapatellar branches of the saphenous nerve to arthroscopy portals and incisions for anterior cruciate ligament surgery. An anatomic study. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(4):562–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bertram C, Porsch M, Hackenbroch MH, Terhaag D. Saphenous neuralgia after arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a Semitendinosus and Gracilis tendon graft. Arthroscopy. 2000;16(7):763–6. https://doi.org/10.1053/jars.2000.4820.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kartus J, Movin T, Karlsson J. Donor-site morbidity and anterior knee problems after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autografts. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(9):971–80. https://doi.org/10.1053/jars.2001.28979.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kjaergaard J, Faunø LZ, Faunø P. Sensibility loss after ACL reconstruction with hamstring graft. Int J Sports Med. 2008;29(6):507–11. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1038338.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Franz W, Baumann A. Minimally invasive semitendinosus tendon harvesting from the popliteal fossa versus conventional hamstring tendon harvesting for ACL reconstruction: a prospective, randomised controlled trial in 100 patients. Knee. 2016;23(1):106–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sharaby MMF, Alfikey A, Alhabsi IS, Al-Ghannami S. No difference in sensory outcome between vertical and oblique incisions for hamstring graft harvest during ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(1):146–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5057-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tavakoli Darestani R, Bagherian Lemraski MM, Hosseinpour M, Kamrani-Rad A. Electrophysiological Assessment of Injury to the Infra-patellar branch(es) of the Saphenous nerve during Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction using medial hamstring Auto-grafts: Vertical versus Oblique Harvest Site incisions. Arch Trauma Res. 2013;2(3):118–23. https://doi.org/10.5812/atr.11146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ochiai S, Hagino T, Senga S, Yamashita T, Oda K, Haro H. Injury to infrapatellar branch of saphenous nerve in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using vertical skin incision for hamstring harvesting: risk factors and the influence of treatment outcome. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12(1):101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0596-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Mahmood A, Nag H, Srivastava AK. Clinical and electrophysiological assessment of injury to infrapatellar branch(es) of saphenous nerve during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using oblique incision for hamstring graft harvest: a prospective study. Knee. 2020;27(3):709–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.04.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Joshi A, Kayasth N, Shrestha S, Kc BR. Infra Patellar Branch of Saphenous nerve Injury during Hamstring Graft Harvest: Vertical versus Oblique incisions. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2016;14(34):180–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mochizuki T, Muneta T, Yagishita K, Shinomiya K, Sekiya I. Skin sensory change after arthroscopically-assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using medial hamstring tendons with a vertical incision. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004;12(3):198–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-003-0451-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Celik D, Coşkunsu D, Kiliçoğlu O. Translation and cultural adaptation of the Turkish Lysholm knee scale: ease of use, validity, and reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(8):2602–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3046-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:43–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mitsou A, Vallianatos P, Piskopakis N, Maheras S. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by over-the-top repair combined with popliteus tendon plasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(3):398–404. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.72B3.2341436.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sipahioglu S, Zehir S, Sarikaya B, Levent A. Injury of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve due to hamstring graft harvest. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017;25(1):2309499017690995. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499017690995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Figueroa D, Calvo R, Vaisman A, Campero M, Moraga C. Injury to the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve in ACL reconstruction with the hamstrings technique: clinical and electrophysiological study. Knee. 2008;15(5):360–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2008.05.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Haviv B, Bronak S, Rath E, Yassin M. Nerve injury during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison between patellar and hamstring tendon grafts harvest. Knee. 2017;24(3):564–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.03.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhu B, Li X, Lou TA. Modified oblique incision in hamstring tendon graft harvesting during ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):206. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02341-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Papastergiou SG, Voulgaropoulos H, Mikalef P, Ziogas E, Pappis G, Giannakopoulos I. Injuries to the infrapatellar branch(es) of the saphenous nerve in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with four-strand hamstring tendon autograft: vertical versus horizontal incision for harvest. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(8):789–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-005-0008-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Luo H, Yu JK, Ao YF, Yu CL, Peng LB, Lin CY, Zhang JY, Fu X. Relationship between different skin incisions and the injury of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Chin Med J (Engl). 2007;120(13):1127–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mousavi H, Mohammadi M, Aghdam HA. Injury to the Infrapatellar Branch of the Saphenous nerve during ACL Reconstruction with Hamstring Tendon Autograft: a comparison between Oblique and Vertical incisions. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2018;6(1):52–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Keyhani S, Kazemi SM, Sajjadi MM, Elmi A. A comparison between Oblique and Vertical incisions on the Hamstring Tendon Harvesting in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Infrapatellar Branch Injury of the saphenous nerve. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2020;55(3):374–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1692695.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cohen SB, Flato R, Wascher J, Watson R, Salminen M, O’Brien D, Tjoumakaris F, Ciccotti M. Incidence and characterization of Hypoesthesia in the distribution of the Infrapatellar Branch of the Saphenous nerve after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: a prospective study of patient-reported numbness. J Knee Surg. 2018;31(6):585–90. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1605559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Inderhaug E, Strand T, Solheim E. The impact of sensory deficits after harvesting hamstrings autograft for ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(4):1060–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2871-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pękala PA, Tomaszewski KA, Henry BM, Ramakrishnan PK, Roy J, Mizia E, Walocha JA. Risk of iatrogenic injury to the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve during hamstring tendon harvesting: a meta-analysis. Muscle Nerve. 2017;56(5):930–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.25587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tennent TD, Birch NC, Holmes MJ, Birch R, Goddard NJ. Knee pain and the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve. J R Soc Med. 1998;91(11):573–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107689809101106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Kerver AL, Leliveld MS, den Hartog D, Verhofstad MH, Kleinrensink GJ. The surgical anatomy of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve in relation to incisions for anteromedial knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(23):2119–25. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Papalia R, Franceschi F, Tecame A, D’Adamio S, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport activity: postural control as the key to success. Int Orthop. 2015;39(3):527–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2513-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Boon JM, Van Wyk MJ, Jordaan D. A safe area and angle for harvesting autogenous tendons for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26(3):167–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-003-0213-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kalthur SG, Sumalatha S, Nair N, Pandey AK, Sequeria S, Shobha L. Anatomic study of infrapatellar branch of saphenous nerve in male cadavers. Ir J Med Sci. 2015;184(1):201–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-014-1087-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sabat D, Kumar V. Nerve injury during hamstring graft harvest: a prospective comparative study of three different incisions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(9):2089–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2243-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ruffilli A, De Fine M, Traina F, Pilla F, Fenga D, Faldini C. Saphenous nerve injury during hamstring tendons harvest: does the incision matter? A systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(10):3140–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4217-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hardy A, Casabianca L, Andrieu K, Baverel L, Noailles T, Junior French Arthroscopy Society. Complications following harvesting of patellar tendon or hamstring tendon grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: systematic review of literature. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(8S):S245–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.09.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Grassi A, Perdisa F, Samuelsson K, Svantesson E, Romagnoli M, Raggi F, Gaziano T, Mosca M, Ayeni O, Zaffagnini S. Association between incision technique for hamstring tendon harvest in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and the risk of injury to the infra-patellar branch of the saphenous nerve: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(8):2410–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-4858-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pagnani MJ, Warner JJ, O’Brien SJ, Warren RF. Anatomic considerations in harvesting the Semitendinosus and Gracilis tendons and a technique of harvest. Am J Sports Med. 1993;21(4):565–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/036354659302100414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wisbech Vange S, Tranum-Jensen J, Krogsgaard MR. Gracilis tendon harvest may lead to both incisional and non-incisional saphenous nerve injuries. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(3):969–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05605-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. García Hernández JM, López-Vidriero Tejedor E, Castañeda González S, Yrayzoz Fuentes J, Periáñez Moreno R, Saval Benítez JM, Carrascal Aldana G. Posterior hamstring harvest improves aesthetic satisfaction and decreases sensory complications as compared to the classic anterior approach in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. J Exp Orthop. 2022;9(1):109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-022-00547-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. de Padua VB, Nascimento PE, Silva SC, de Gusmão Canuto SM, Zuppi GN, de Carvalho SM. Saphenous nerve injury during harvesting of one or two hamstring tendons for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Rev Bras Ortop. 2015;50(5):546–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2015.08.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

No funds have been received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

OFE, FD, AY and OK conceived and designed the study. Data was acquired by MMA, BE, OFE, and OK. OK, FD and AY were responsible for the analysis and interpretation of data. The manuscript was drafted by OFE, FD, OK, MMA, and AY, while critical revisions were made by OFE, FD, OK, and BE. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aliekber Yapar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

The Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol (2.12.2020/20.06–390).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Egerci, O.F., Dogruoz, F., Asoglu, M.M. et al. The prognosis of iatrogenic saphenous nerve injuries during hamstring tendon harvesting in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Surg Res 19, 428 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04929-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04929-z