I saw the surgeon yesterday.
However, given my love of cycling and goal to one day win a national title, he is hesitant to do anything to upset the knee any more than necessary. In particular, he feels the repetitive motion of pedaling could irritate the resultant scar tissue of the patellar tendon, if we were to take that route. The hamstring tendon is another option, but given its involvement in knee flexion, the surgeon feels it carries the same issues relative to irritation over the millions of cycles (pun not intended) in pedaling.
The allograft, or utilisation of cadaver tissue for the reconstruction, apparently fares about the same statistically as the autograft in older patients. While I agree with the surgeon on not wanting to cause insult to any more of the knee that has already been done, I wonder how much of the data for older patients is skewed by the fact that most patients over 40 suffer this kind of injury and then naturally slow down and/or cease to participate in physical activity. If this is true for a majority of those undergoing ACL reconstruction, then the material used really doesn't matter since it's not really being stressed. I know one such patient who, while never as avid a skier as I, has sworn off skiing in the wake of her surgery. I wonder for how many in the data set used to tout the efficacy of using cadaver tissue this is true. Even without my lofty cycling goals, I hope to remain active in many sports, such as skiing and kiteboarding, that while not necessarily heavy on the cutting and pivoting, remain very high energy.
What are your thoughts?
What was your experience when having ACL reconstruction?
Would love to hear from everyone, but especially from cyclists.