It is hard to say if one technique is indeed “better” than another, as they have not been directly compared in the research. However it is useful to look at the results of studies using each technique and consider outcomes and complications. In this study, with a fairly high number of participants (thirty-two) there were very few complications and high success rate. This paper mentions another study (Guan and Wolf) that reported on six patients who had a similar reconstruction but with the use of a tendon from a second surgical site (gracilis, semitendinosus, or palmaris longus). At a follow up time of fourth-four months five of these six patients had no pain and had returned to normal activities. Another study (Bae et al.) reported on nine patients with tendon graft from another body part, with ninety percent of patients reporting full recovery after fifty-five months. According to these other results it appears that all these techniques are successful for the outcome, however it is difficult to directly compare the results. The main difference to consider is with a tendon graft from another body part there will be a second incision site, which can create it’s own complications.