BACKGROUND: Osteochondral autografts and allografts have been widely used in the treatment of isolated grade IV articular cartilage lesions of the knee. However, the authors are not aware of any study that has prospectively compared fresh osteochondral autografts to fresh allografts with regard to imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology. HYPOTHESIS: The imaging, biomechanical properties, and histologic appearance of fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft are similar with respect to bony incorporation into host bone, articular cartilage composition, and biomechanical properties. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eighteen adult dogs underwent bilateral knee osteochondral graft implantation after creation of an Outerbridge grade IV cartilage defect. One knee received an autograft, and the contralateral knee received a fresh allograft. Nine dogs were sacrificed at 3 months, and 9 dogs were sacrificed at 6 months. Graft analysis included gross examination, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated excellent bony incorporation of both autografts and allografts. Biomechanical testing demonstrated no significant difference between autografts versus allografts versus control at 3 or 6 months (P = .36-.91). A post hoc calculation showed 80% power to detect a 30% difference between allograft and control. Histologic examination showed normal cartilage structure for both autografts and allografts. CONCLUSION: Fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft tissues are not statistically different with respect to bony incorporation, articular cartilage composition, or biomechanical properties up to 6 months after implantation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of fresh allograft tissue to treat osteochondral defects eliminates morbidity associated with harvesting autograft tissue without compromising the results of the surgical procedure.
BACKGROUND: Osteochondral autografts and allografts have been widely used in the treatment of isolated grade IV articular cartilage lesions of the knee. However, the authors are not aware of any study that has prospectively compared fresh osteochondral autografts to fresh allografts with regard to imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology. HYPOTHESIS: The imaging, biomechanical properties, and histologic appearance of fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft are similar with respect to bony incorporation into host bone, articular cartilage composition, and biomechanical properties. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eighteen adult dogs underwent bilateral knee osteochondral graft implantation after creation of an Outerbridge grade IV cartilage defect. One knee received an autograft, and the contralateral knee received a fresh allograft. Nine dogs were sacrificed at 3 months, and 9 dogs were sacrificed at 6 months. Graft analysis included gross examination, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated excellent bony incorporation of both autografts and allografts. Biomechanical testing demonstrated no significant difference between autografts versus allografts versus control at 3 or 6 months (P = .36-.91). A post hoc calculation showed 80% power to detect a 30% difference between allograft and control. Histologic examination showed normal cartilage structure for both autografts and allografts. CONCLUSION: Fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft tissues are not statistically different with respect to bony incorporation, articular cartilage composition, or biomechanical properties up to 6 months after implantation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of fresh allograft tissue to treat osteochondral defects eliminates morbidity associated with harvesting autograft tissue without compromising the results of the surgical procedure.
Authors: Taralyn M McCarrel; Sarah L Pownder; Susannah Gilbert; Matthew F Koff; Emme Castiglione; Ryan A Saska; Gino Bradica; Lisa A Fortier Journal: Cartilage Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Liming Bian; Aaron M Stoker; Kevin M Marberry; Gerard A Ateshian; James L Cook; Clark T Hung Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Christiaan J A van Bergen; Leendert Blankevoort; Rob J de Haan; Inger N Sierevelt; Duncan E Meuffels; Pieter R N d'Hooghe; Rover Krips; Geert van Damme; C Niek van Dijk Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2009-07-10 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Andrea L Pallante-Kichura; Albert C Chen; Michele M Temple-Wong; William D Bugbee; Robert L Sah Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 3.494