ACL Graft Comparison Guide: Quad Tendon, Patellar Tendon, Hamstring, and Allograft

When patients ask Dr. Burnham which ACL graft is right for them, the answer is that there’s no single “best” option. The best graft is the one that matches your anatomy, your activity level, and your goals. After reconstructing hundreds of ACLs over his career at Ochsner-Andrews Sports Medicine Institute, Dr. Burnham has used all four major graft options and learned that successful outcomes depend less on the graft material and more on precise surgical technique, proper rehabilitation, and honest patient selection.

This guide walks you through the four main ACL graft options, explains what the evidence shows about each, and reveals how Dr. Burnham thinks through the decision with patients. Whether you’re newly diagnosed with an ACL tear or researching your options before meeting with a surgeon, understanding these differences will help you ask better questions and feel more confident about whatever path you choose together with the surgical team.

Understanding ACL Graft Options

Your ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) is a bundle of collagen fibers that prevents your tibia from sliding forward under your femur. When it tears, we can’t simply stitch it back together. The torn ends don’t heal well enough to withstand athletic loading, so we replace it with a graft. That graft is a tendon, either harvested from your own body (autograft) or sourced from a donor (allograft).

Surgeons have used four main sources for the past 30 years, and the data now shows that all four work well when implanted correctly. The differences lie in recovery speed, donor site morbidity, strength profile, and patient preference. Here’s what you need to know about each.

Quad Tendon Autograft: Dr. Burnham’s Preferred Option

The quadriceps tendon is the thick tendon that sits above your kneecap and powers knee extension. For most primary ACL reconstructions, it’s the first choice. The team typically harvests only the central one-third of the tendon, leaving the medial and lateral portions intact so quad function remains uncompromised.

Why is this the preferred option? The quad tendon is large, strong, and vascularized (it has its own blood supply). Biomechanically, it offers superior initial strength compared to hamstring grafts. In biomechanics lab work and clinical outcomes, quad tendon grafts show consistent incorporation and low failure rates. The donor site morbidity is minimal because we’re only harvesting a portion of a broad tendon, not the entire source.

Recovery is straightforward. There is a transient quad strength deficit in the first several months (more on that below), but it resolves with targeted rehab because the remaining tendon fibers and the vastus medialis/lateralis continue to power extension. Unlike patellar tendon grafts, you don’t experience anterior knee pain from the graft harvest site. And unlike hamstring grafts, you maintain full hamstring function for flexion and external rotation.

The evidence supports this approach. In a 2019 study in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Dr. Burnham’s group compared quad tendon, patellar tendon, and hamstring grafts using isokinetic Biodex testing at multiple time points after surgery. The key finding was that quad tendon grafts showed a transient quadriceps strength deficit at 5 to 8 months, but caught up completely by return to play. Hamstring grafts, on the other hand, showed both quadriceps deficits and hamstring deficits that never fully recovered. Based on that data, the team modified rehabilitation algorithms so that quad tendon patients now follow the same return-to-play goals and timeline as BTB patients. The early quad deficit is real and something patients are counseled about, but it resolves with targeted rehab, and QT avoids both the anterior knee pain of BTB and the persistent hamstring weakness that comes with hamstring grafts. An anatomic tunnel technique, published in Arthroscopy Techniques (2017), further optimizes graft positioning to reduce rotatory laxity and improve long-term stability.

The team is also pushing the envelope on optimizing quad tendon harvest site healing. One of the known drawbacks of QT is that harvesting the tendon disrupts the rectus femoris and its surrounding paratenon, which can cause inflammation, persistent quad atrophy, and delayed neuromuscular recovery. The quadriceps tendon shares significant anatomic and biomechanical similarities with the Achilles tendon, including a watershed zone that relies on extrinsic blood supply from the paratenon, and mechanoreceptors that contribute to proprioception and muscle activation. Harvesting the graft may create a “double hit” by damaging both intra-articular and extra-articular sources of afferent nerve signaling, adding to the arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) that already occurs after ACL injury.

To address this, Dr. Burnham applies amniotic matrix (Arthrex Amnion) directly to the quad tendon harvest bed during surgery. Amniotic tissue has well-documented anti-inflammatory properties, prevents adhesions and scarring, delivers growth factors (including TIMPs that block the matrix metalloproteinases that break down tendon), increases tenocyte proliferation and collagen formation, and promotes nerve regeneration. The basic science is compelling: Woodall et al. (2018) described the foundational technique for amnion augmentation in ACL reconstruction, and a pilot randomized controlled trial by Anz, Jordan, and Andrews (2023) demonstrated safety with no adverse events at two-year follow-up. Dr. Burnham received the 2022 AOSSM Playmaker Award to fund a prospective randomized controlled trial studying amnion at the quad tendon harvest site specifically, with primary outcomes including harvest site pain, isokinetic strength, quad symmetry, and tendon ultrasound assessment. This technique was presented at the AAOS 2026 Orthopaedic Video Theater in a narrated 4K surgical video. The goal is earlier return of quad symmetry, safer return to play, and better long-term patient outcomes.

One caveat: quad tendon is technically demanding. The dissection is bloodier than a hamstring harvest, and the tunnel drilling is more precise. This graft is only recommended for surgeons who are experienced with the technique. In less experienced hands, it’s not superior to other options.

Patellar Tendon Autograft (BTB): The Historical Gold Standard

The bone-tendon-bone (BTB) patellar tendon graft was the dominant choice for 25 years because it’s strong, accessible, and heals well. We harvest the entire patellar tendon along with bone plugs from your kneecap and tibial tuberosity. Those bone plugs integrate into the femoral and tibial tunnels, creating a mechanically robust construct.

The data is excellent. Long-term stability is comparable to quad tendon and hamstring grafts. Initial strength is high. And revision rates are low. For the right patient, a patellar tendon graft is a smart choice.

But there’s a trade-off: anterior knee pain. Harvesting the patellar tendon creates a larger wound and leaves the tibial tuberosity sensitive. Many patients report pain with kneeling, ascending stairs, or high-impact activities for 6-12 months after surgery. Some experience it for years. This doesn’t mean the graft has failed, but it does affect quality of life during recovery.

A second concern is patellar fracture risk. Removing bone from both the kneecap and tuberosity weakens both structures. The incidence of fracture is low (less than 3 percent), but it’s a real risk that doesn’t exist with soft tissue grafts.

Who should choose BTB? Athletes who demand the strongest initial construct and don’t mind anterior knee pain. Older patients where rotatory control matters more than speed. Revision cases where a previous graft failed and maximum strength is the priority.

Hamstring Tendon Autograft: The Soft Tissue Option

The hamstring tendons (semitendinosus and gracilis) are two flexible tendons in the back of your thigh. When we harvest them, we get two tendons that we fold or braid into a four-strand bundle, creating a graft roughly 8-9 mm in diameter. It’s a popular choice because the harvest is straightforward, there’s no anterior knee pain, and patients recover quickly.

Early studies showed that hamstring grafts were weaker than patellar tendon initially, and that’s still true. But the evidence from the past ten years shows that hamstring grafts achieve comparable long-term stability and low failure rates when the technique is rigorous. The weakness gap closes by 6-12 months post-op as the graft ligamentizes.

The downsides are real. First, you lose hamstring strength and endurance. This matters for athletes who rely on hamstring power (soccer players, sprinters, wrestlers). The loss is usually 10-20 percent and often recovers over 12-18 months, but not always completely. Second, hamstring grafts have slower initial force production, which means a more conservative rehabilitation timeline. Third, the harvest wounds can cause temporary muscle cramping or tightness.

When is hamstring the best choice? For patients who need faster donor site recovery and less anterior knee pain. For older patients where long-term stability is the priority and strength loss is less relevant. For revision cases where the goal is to preserve remaining tissue.

Allograft (Donor Tissue): When Your Own Tendon Isn’t Available

Allograft means we use a tendon from a donor (deceased or living), either fresh, fresh-frozen, or sterilized. The big advantage is obvious: no surgery on your own body. No donor site morbidity. No strength loss. Recovery can be faster because we’re not managing a graft harvest wound alongside the ACL reconstruction.

The catch is biology. Allograft tissue is immunologically foreign, even though banks process it to reduce immune response. The graft integration is typically slower than autograft, and some studies show higher failure rates, especially in young, active patients. The most robust long-term data comes from older patients (40+ years) and lower-demand activities.

Cost is another factor. Allograft tissue is more expensive than autograft, and insurance may not cover it fully. Dr. Burnham reserves allograft for specific scenarios: older patients (50+ years) with moderate activity levels, revision cases where autograft options have been exhausted, or patients with significant comorbidities where minimizing operative time and blood loss is paramount.

One newer consideration is the use of fresh or fresh-frozen allograft with improved processing techniques. Some centers report outcomes approaching autograft in selected populations, but the data is still emerging. For now, autograft remains the gold standard for young, athletic patients.

How Dr. Burnham Chooses a Graft

When the team sits down to plan an ACL reconstruction, five questions guide the process:

1. How old are you, and how active will you want to be after surgery? A 45-year-old golfer has different needs than a 22-year-old athlete returning to the NFL. Age and activity level guide whether Dr. Burnham prioritizes maximum strength or minimum donor morbidity. Younger, higher-demand athletes usually get quad tendon. Older or lower-demand patients may get hamstring or allograft.

2. Do you have previous knee surgery or injuries? If you’ve had a meniscus repair or prior hamstring harvest, your options change. If you have anterior knee pain already, a patellar tendon graft is off the table. If you tore your ACL before and need revision, the choice depends on what’s still available on your leg.

3. What’s your pain tolerance, and how important is the recovery timeline? If anterior knee pain will derail you emotionally, don’t choose patellar tendon. If you need to be back to unrestricted activity in four months, hamstring or quad tendon are faster than BTB. This is legitimate. Pain and timeline affect adherence to rehab and long-term outcome.

4. What does the evidence show about graft strength and longevity for your activity? For contact athletes and those planning high-level return, the data slightly favor quad tendon and patellar tendon over hamstring. But the difference shrinks with good rehabilitation. Even a “weaker” graft can outperform a “stronger” graft if your rehab is more disciplined.

5. What’s Dr. Burnham’s comfort with each technique? Dr. Burnham is most experienced with quad tendon and acknowledges this bias. But the team is proficient with all four options and will recommend what serves your goals best, not what suits personal preference.

Here’s the typical framework:

• Quad tendon: Primary choice for most young, athletic patients (teens through early 40s) who want maximum strength and minimal donor morbidity.
• Patellar tendon: For athletes willing to tolerate anterior knee pain in exchange for maximum initial strength, or for revision cases where maximum strength is the priority.
• Hamstring: For older patients, those with prior knee surgery, or athletes prioritizing fast recovery over peak initial strength.
• Allograft: For patients 50+ years old with moderate activity, revision cases with no autograft available, or those with significant medical comorbidities.

But these are guidelines, not rules. Each patient is unique, and the final choice belongs to you. Dr. Burnham’s role is to present the evidence honestly, acknowledge biases, and help you make an informed decision aligned with your life.

The Bottom Line

The best ACL graft is the one that’s right for you. All four options work well in experienced hands. The differences in outcome are small compared to the importance of surgical technique, graft placement, and post-operative rehabilitation. When you meet to plan your ACL reconstruction, the team will go through this framework together, discuss your specific situation, and land on a graft choice that aligns with your goals and your timeline.

If you’re reading this and still unsure which graft is best for your situation, that’s normal. ACL graft selection is personal, and it deserves a conversation with a surgeon who knows your anatomy, your activity, and your values. Dr. Burnham is here to guide you through that decision at Ochsner-Andrews Sports Medicine Institute in Baton Rouge.

Dr. Jeremy Burnham is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist at Ochsner-Andrews Sports Medicine Institute in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He earned his medical degree from Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, completed his orthopaedic surgery residency at the University of Kentucky, and his sports medicine fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center under Dr. Volker Musahl. He has authored over 50 peer-reviewed publications on ACL biomechanics, graft selection, and surgical technique in journals including the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, and the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. He serves as Clinical Faculty at the University of Queensland-Ochsner Medical School.

References

1. Burnham JM, Malempati CS, Carpiaux A, Ireland ML, Johnson DL. Anatomic femoral and tibial tunnel placement during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial portal all-inside and outside-in techniques. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2017;6(2):e275-e282. PubMed
2. Hughes JD, Burnham JM, Hirsh A, Musahl V, Fu FH, Irrgang JJ, Lynch AD. Comparison of short-term Biodex results after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction among 3 autografts. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019;7(5):2325967119847630. PubMed
3. Burnham JM, Herbst E, Pauyo T, Pfeiffer T, Johnson DL, Fu FH, Musahl V. Technical considerations in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics. 2017;27(1):63-69. PubMed
4. Richman EH, Hop JC, McGinley BM, Burnham JM, Mitchell JJ, Krych AJ, Frank RM. All-suture cortical button fixation in all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with quadriceps tendon autograft. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2025;14(12):103956. PubMed
5. Webster KE, Feller JA, Lambros C. Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2008;9(1):9-15. PubMed
6. Erickson BJ, Harris JD, Fillingham YA, Frank RM, Bush-Joseph CA, Bach BR, Cole BJ, Verma NN. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practice patterns by NFL and NCAA football team physicians. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(6):731-738. PubMed
7. Prodromos CC, Fu FH, Howell SM, Johnson DH, Lawhorn K. Controversies in soft-tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: grafts, bundles, tunnels, fixation, and harvest. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2008;16(7):376-384. PubMed
8. Fithian DC, Paxton EW, Stone ML, et al. Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2005;33(3):335-346. PubMed
9. Woodall BM, Elena N, Gamboa JT, Shin EC, Pathare N, McGahan PJ, Chen JL. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with amnion biological augmentation. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2018;7(4):e355-e360. PubMed
10. Anz AW, Jordan SE, Ostrander RV, Branch EA, Denney TS, Cohen A, Andrews JR. Augmentation of ACL autograft reconstruction with an amnion collagen matrix wrap and bone marrow aspirate concentrate: a pilot randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;11(11):23259671231210035. PubMed

Frequently Asked Questions