Literature DB >> 19560639

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus allograft.

Kang Sun1, Shao-qi Tian, Ji-hua Zhang, Chang-suo Xia, Cai-long Zhang, Teng-bo Yu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical outcome of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus allograft.
METHODS: Between May 2000 and June 2004, 172 patients undergoing arthroscopic bone-patellar tendon-bone ACL reconstruction were prospectively randomized into autograft (n = 86) or allograft (n = 86) groups. The senior surgeon performed all operations using the same surgical technique. Each fixation was performed by means of an interference screw. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at follow-up. Of the patients, 156 (76 in the autograft group and 80 in the allograft group) were available for full evaluation. Evaluations included a detailed history, physical examination, functional knee ligament testing, KT-2000 arthrometer testing (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA), Harner's vertical jump and Daniel's 1-leg hop tests, Lysholm score, Tegner score, International Knee Documentation Committee standard evaluation form, Cincinnati knee score, and radiograph.
RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between groups. The mean follow-up was 5.6 years for both groups. There were no statistically significant differences according to evaluations of outcome between the 2 groups except that patients in the allograft group had a shorter operation time and longer fever time postoperatively compared with the autograft group. The postoperative infection rates were 0% and 1.25% for the autograft group and allograft group, respectively. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in the development of osteoarthritis between the operated knee in comparison to the contralateral knee according to radiographs. However, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups at the final follow-up examination (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both groups of patients achieved almost the same satisfactory outcomes after a mean of 5.6 years of follow-up. Allograft is a reasonable alternative to autograft for ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19560639     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.12.023

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


  24 in total

Review 1.  Pivot shift as an outcome measure for ACL reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Olufemi R Ayeni; Manraj Chahal; Michael N Tran; Sheila Sprague
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  [The time-related risk for knee osteoarthritis after ACL injury. Results from a systematic review].

Authors:  G Spahn; M Schiltenwolf; B Hartmann; J Grifka; G O Hofmann; H-T Klemm
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  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

4.  A prospective randomized comparison of irradiated and non-irradiated hamstring tendon allograft for ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Kang Sun; Jihua Zhang; Yan Wang; Cailong Zhang; Changsuo Xia; Tengbo Yu; Shaoqi Tian
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Variance in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Graft Selection based on Patient Demographics and Location within the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network Cohort.

Authors:  Darby A Houck; Matthew J Kraeutler; Armando F Vidal; Eric C McCarty; Jonathan T Bravman; Michelle L Wolcott
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 6.  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

7.  Arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction with modified double-layer bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft.

Authors:  Hui Jun Kang; Yan Ling Su; Hui Jian Cao; Fei Wang; Da Hai Yu; Zhi Min Zheng; Ying Ze Zhang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Reply to comment on Hu et al. "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:  2013-02-03       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 9.  Patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Li-Wei Yao; Qi Wang; Liang Zhang; Chao Zhang; Bin Zhang; Yan-Jun Zhang; Shi-Qing Feng
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-05-16

10.  Hamstring tendon autograft versus fresh-frozen tibialis posterior allograft in primary arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study with three to six years follow-up.

Authors:  Mohsen Mardani-Kivi; Mahmoud Karimi-Mobarakeh; Sohrab Keyhani; Khashayar Saheb-Ekhtiari; Keyvan Hashemi-Motlagh; Ali Sarvi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.