Literature DB >> 16012489

Analysis of outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament repair with 5-year follow-up: allograft versus autograft.

Gary G Poehling1, Walton W Curl, Cassandra A Lee, T Adam Ginn, Julia T Rushing, Michelle J Naughton, Martha B Holden, David F Martin, Beth P Smith.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with either Achilles tendon allograft with soft-tissue fixation or standard bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft with interference screw fixation. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective comparative case series.
METHODS: A group of 41 patients who underwent soft-tissue allograft reconstruction and a group of 118 patients who underwent autograft bone-patellar tendon-bone reconstruction were included in the final results. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 to 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and then annually for 5 years. Objective measures of outcome included KT-1000 measurements, range of motion, ligamentous integrity, thigh atrophy, and International Knee Documentation Committee score. Subjective evaluations included patient completion of 5 questionnaires documenting functional status, pain, and health-related quality of life: (1) the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, (2) a patient subjective assessment of knee function and symptoms, (3) a patient subjective assessment follow-up, (4) a knee pain scale, and (5) the RAND 36-Item Health Survey. Mixed models analysis of variance was used to compare the outcomes of the treatment groups using baseline values of the study variables as a covariate.
RESULTS: Autograft patients reported significantly more pain on the bodily pain subscale of the RAND-36 than the allograft group at 1 week (P = .0006), 6 weeks (P = .0007), and 3 months (P = .0270). Autograft patients reported more pain than allograft patients on the McGill Pain Scale visual analog scale at 1 to 2 weeks (P < .0001) and 6 weeks (P = .0147). Patient assessment of function and symptoms showed that a higher proportion of patients reported normal or nearly normal knee function in the allograft group than in the autograft group at 3 months (33% v 14%, P = .0558, respectively). Fewer activity limitations were reported by allograft patients than autograft patients at 6 weeks (P = .0501), 3 months (P = .0431), and 6 months (P = .0014). After reconstruction, the allograft group displayed significantly more laxity in KT-1000 measurements at all time points than the autograft group (P = .0520). These measurements decreased over time for both groups (P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Five-year follow-up of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with allograft versus autograft were compared objectively and subjectively. Both groups of patients achieved similar long-term outcomes. Overall, the allograft patients reported less pain at 1 and 6 weeks after surgery, better function at 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year, and fewer activity limitations throughout the follow-up period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective cohort study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16012489     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.04.112

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


  39 in total

1.  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

2.  Biomechanical and tissue handling property comparison of decellularized and cryopreserved tibialis anterior tendons following extreme incubation and rehydration.

Authors:  J Nyland; N Larsen; R Burden; H Chang; D N M Caborn
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  [Allografts for cruciate ligament reconstruction].

Authors:  S Buchmann; V Musahl; A B Imhoff; P U Brucker
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  Variables associated with return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sylvia Czuppon; Brad A Racette; Sandra E Klein; Marcie Harris-Hayes
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 13.800

6.  Fractionation of high-dose electron beam irradiation of BPTB grafts provides significantly improved viscoelastic and structural properties compared to standard gamma irradiation.

Authors:  A Hoburg; S Keshlaf; T Schmidt; M Smith; U Gohs; C Perka; A Pruss; S Scheffler
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-05-04       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  Allograft versus autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an up-to-date meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Authors:  Jianzhong Hu; Jin Qu; Daqi Xu; Jingyong Zhou; Hongbin Lu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-12-04       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Comparison of Achilles and tibialis anterior tendon allografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Seung-Ju Kim; Ji-Hoon Bae; Hong-chul Lim
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-12-08       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  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

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.