Literature DB >> 11154360

Allograft versus autograft patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A 5-year follow-up.

R K Peterson1, W R Shelton, A L Bomboy.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the long-term results of allograft versus autograft central one-third bone-patellar tendon-bone reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), 2 groups of 30 patients were evaluated subjectively and objectively at an average follow-up of 63 months (range, 55 to 78 months). TYPE OF STUDY: A prospective nonrandomized study.
METHODS: All surgeries were performed endoscopically by a single surgeon using metal interference screw fixation between May 1991 and November 1992. Early aggressive rehabilitation was employed and follow-up visits at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 60 months noted swelling, pain, range of motion, and patellofemoral crepitus, and Lachman test, pivot shift test, and side-to-side arthrometer differences.
RESULTS: Results were analyzed using 2-sample t test and chi-square analysis. Average age at surgery for autografts was 25 years (range, 14 to 49) and for allografts was 28 years (range, 14 to 53). The presence of meniscal tears were similar (allografts, 23 tears; autografts, 19 tears). At follow-up, no statistically significant difference was found for the presence of pain, giving way, effusion, Lachman and pivot shift results, or arthrometer measurements. Two patients, 1 allograft and 1 autograft had complete rupture of their grafts. There was no late stretching out of either graft and patients stable at 2 years were stable at 5 years, with the exception of the 1 ruptured graft in each group.
CONCLUSIONS: A trend toward a greater incidence of glide on pivot testing was seen in the allografts (4 allografts v 2 autografts) but was present at 2 years and did not change at 5 years. A trend toward greater loss of extension in autografts (2.47 degrees ) than allografts (1.07 degrees ) was seen at 5-year follow-up, not seen at 2 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11154360     DOI: 10.1053/jars.2001.19965

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  47 in total

1.  Morphological and molecular characterization of human hamstrings shows that tendon features are not influenced by donor age.

Authors:  Nicoletta Gagliano; Alessandra Menon; Federico Cabitza; Riccardo Compagnoni; Pietro Randelli
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Comparison of clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic findings after ACL reconstruction using a hamstring autograft or a tibialis allograft.

Authors:  Seung-Hyun Yoo; Eun-Kyoo Song; Young-Rok Shin; Sung-Kyu Kim; Jong-Keun Seon
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  AAOS 2004: all about allografts - highlights of the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Authors:  Donald Johnson
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2004-10-19

4.  The extracellular remodeling of free-soft-tissue autografts and allografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a comparison study in a sheep model.

Authors:  M Dustmann; T Schmidt; I Gangey; F N Unterhauser; A Weiler; S U Scheffler
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with BPTB autograft, irradiated versus non-irradiated allograft: a prospective randomized clinical study.

Authors:  Kang Sun; Shaoqi Tian; Jihua Zhang; Changsuo Xia; Cailong Zhang; Tengbo Yu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Prospective comparison of auto and allograft hamstring tendon constructs for ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Cory M Edgar; Scott Zimmer; Sanjeev Kakar; Hugh Jones; Anthony A Schepsis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-06-25       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  A systematic review of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft compared with allograft.

Authors:  James L Carey; Warren R Dunn; Diane L Dahm; Scott L Zeger; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Two to five year results of primary ACL reconstruction using doubled tibialis anterior allograft.

Authors:  Martyn Snow; Gregory Campbell; Jay Adlington; William D Stanish
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Proprioceptive comparison of allograft and autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.

Authors:  A Merter Ozenci; Erkan Inanmaz; Haluk Ozcanli; Yetkin Soyuncu; Nehir Samanci; Tufan Dagseven; Nilüfer Balci; Semih Gur
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-09-09       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Cost analysis of outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: autograft versus allograft.

Authors:  Sameer H Nagda; Grant G Altobelli; Kevin A Bowdry; Clive E Brewster; Stephen J Lombardo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.