PATIENT INFO

Choosing Your ACL Graft

Authors

A guide to the options available — autograft vs allograft — and how each affects your surgery and recovery.

When planning ACL reconstruction, one of the most important decisions is graft selection. There is no single best graft for every patient — the right choice depends on your age, activity level, sport, anatomy, and specific risk profile. Dr Sundaraj will guide you through this decision at your consultation, but the following overview outlines the main options and what to expect from each.

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Autograft vs Allograft

ACL grafts come from one of two sources: your own body (autograft) or a carefully processed donor tendon (allograft). Autografts have historically been considered the gold standard, particularly in young and high-demand athletes, owing to their reliable biological incorporation and lower re-rupture rates in this cohort. The trade-off is donor site morbidity — the harvested tendon leaves a gap that must heal, and this can contribute to early weakness, discomfort, or specific functional deficits depending on which tissue is taken. Allografts eliminate donor site morbidity entirely and allow for a less invasive procedure with a smaller incision, which can simplify rehabilitation in the early weeks. The concern with traditional allografts has been a higher re-rupture rate in younger, active patients — a finding linked to the sterilisation process used. Modern supercritically sterilised allografts from young donors have substantially addressed this concern, and represent a highly viable option across a broader range of patients than was once accepted.

The Joint Clinic, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

The Joint Clinic, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons


Hamstring Tendon (Gracilis & Semitendinosus)

Autograft

The hamstring graft, harvested from the gracilis and semitendinosus tendons on the inner aspect of the knee, has been the most widely used ACL graft in Australia over the past two decades. The tendons are folded to create a four-strand construct (quadrupled graft), producing a strong, flexible graft with good biological compatibility. The harvest site is relatively low-morbidity compared to bone-tendon-bone grafts, and the tendons do regenerate over time — though the regenerated tissue differs from the original.

Advantages

  • Minimal anterior knee pain post-op

  • Smaller incision than patellar tendon

  • No bone block — purely soft tissue fixation

  • Tendon regrowth occurs over time

  • Strong long-term outcomes data

Considerations

  • Higher re-rupture rate vs patellar tendon in some studies

  • Graft size can be variable — smaller tunnels in some patients

  • Hamstring weakness, sometimes permanent

  • Scar tissue around reformed tendon can retear

  • Graft diameter dependent on patient anatomy



Patellar Tendon (Bone-Tendon-Bone)

Autograft

The patellar tendon graft — harvested as a central third strip with a bony plug at either end — is one of the most extensively studied ACL grafts in the world and has long been considered a benchmark option, particularly for elite athletes and those returning to high-demand pivoting sports. The bone blocks allow for direct bony healing within the tunnels, which is generally faster and more secure than soft tissue fixation. This makes it particularly attractive where graft incorporation speed matters, and where the surgeon wishes to avoid the variability associated with soft tissue graft diameter.

Advantages

  • Bone-to-bone healing — reliable incorporation

  • Predictable graft dimensions

  • Lowest re-rupture rate in some meta-analyses

  • Preferred by many surgeons for elite athletes

  • Strong decades-long outcomes data

Considerations

  • Anterior knee pain and kneeling discomfort (patella donor site)

  • Risk of patellar fracture or tendon rupture at harvest site (rare)

  • Technically more demanding surgery

  • Early quad inhibition due to anterior pain

  • Larger incision than hamstring

  • Risk of patella baja and arthritis


Quadriceps Tendon

Autograft

The quadriceps tendon graft has grown substantially in popularity over the past decade. Harvested from the distal quadriceps tendon above the patella, it offers a large, robust graft with excellent mechanical properties. It can be harvested with or without a patellar bone plug, giving surgical flexibility. The harvest site sits proximal to the patella, generally sparing the patient the anterior knee pain that characterises patellar tendon harvest. The quadriceps tendon is notably thick, making it well-suited to patients with larger frames or those requiring a high-strength graft.

Advantages

  • Large graft cross-section — strong mechanical properties

  • Less anterior knee pain than patellar tendon

  • Can include bone plug for tunnel healing if desired

  • Growing evidence base supporting good outcomes

Considerations

  • Suprapatellar scar can cause discomfort when kneeling

  • Risk patella fracture

  • Quad weakness that may persist

  • More demanding rehab than hamstring

  • Less long-term data than patellar tendon or hamstring


Rectus Femoris Tendon

Autograft

The rectus femoris tendon is a less commonly used autograft option, though it holds a specific role in the surgical armamentarium — particularly in revision ACL surgery where conventional harvest sites have already been used, or in patients with anatomy or prior injury that makes standard graft harvest inadvisable. The tendon is harvested from the proximal portion of the rectus femoris and can provide an adequate graft with reasonable biomechanical properties. It is not typically a first-line choice in primary ACL reconstruction given the more limited evidence base, but it represents a valuable alternative when other options are unavailable or have been exhausted.

Advantages

  • Viable option when wanting to avoid other graft morbidity

  • Useful in revision and complex settings

  • Does not compromise patellar or hamstring function

  • Very large graft dimensions in most patients

Considerations

  • Emerging evidence compared with autograft options

  • Quad weakness during recovery

  • Technically demanding dissection

  • Risk of proximal avulsion or reinjury



As with all operations, if at any stage anything seems amiss, it is better to call for advice rather than wait and worry. A fever, redness or swelling around the line of the wound or an unexplained increase in pain should all be brought to the surgeon's attention. You can contact Dr Sundaraj by telephoning his staff during business hours or the Mater Hospital after hours. For any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our staff (02) 9437 5999 For after-hour assistance contact Mater Hospital (02) 9900 7300 Further information is available on our website  

Get in touch.

Fill out the form and one of the team will be back in touch within 24 hours.

Alternatively, give us a call on
(02) 9437 5999