Literature DB >> 22350055

Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon allograft and autograft: 2- and 5-year results.

Hermann O Mayr1, Doerthe Willkomm, Amelie Stoehr, Mathias Schettle, Norbert P Suedkamp, Anke Bernstein, Robert Hube.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The most common failure reasons of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft are incorrect positioning of the drill channels and insufficient fixation. In many cases, one-stage revision with patellar tendon graft and the appropriate corrections are possible. For previous use of the ipsilateral patellar tendon third, an allograft seems favorable for reconstruction. So far, no study compared the results of revision surgery of autologous versus allogenous patellar tendon grafts for revision surgery of the ACL in a 5-year follow-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the clinical outcome and stability results 2 years (19.2 ± 5.8 months) and 5 years (68.8 ± 6.8 months) after revision of ACL reconstruction using middle-third patellar tendon allografts and autografts. The allografts were cleansed by mechanical means only. There were 15 patients in the allograft group and 14 in the autograft group. Patients with isolated re-rupture of the ACL graft were included in the study. Clinical results were evaluated by International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 forms (IKDC), Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, and visual analog scale. Stability was evaluated by means of KT-1000 arthrometer, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test. Location of drill holes was evaluated radiologically. Gonarthritis was graded according to Kellgren and Lawrence on the basis of radiographs.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in anterior translation, manual examination for stability, IKDC 2000 findings, Tegner activity score, or Lysholm score. Extension deficits were more frequent in the autograft group at the first follow-up (P = 0.010). Lateral gonarthritis and femoral tunnel widening were more common in the allograft group at the second follow-up (P = 0.049 and P = 0.023, respectively). Pain on walking downhill was significantly more frequent in the allograft group at the second follow-up (P = 0.027).
CONCLUSIONS: The functional results with allografts that had not undergone irradiation or chemical sterilization were comparable to those with autografts in ACL revision surgery. Allografts represent a good alternative to autogenous patellar tendons in revision surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22350055     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-012-1481-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  12 in total

1.  Tibial ACL insertion site length: correlation between preoperative MRI and intra-operative measurements.

Authors:  Harald K Widhalm; Levent Surer; Nikhil Kurapati; Claudia Guglielmino; James J Irrgang; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcome and evidence for return to sport.

Authors:  Luca Andriolo; Giuseppe Filardo; Elizaveta Kon; Margherita Ricci; Francesco Della Villa; Stefano Della Villa; Stefano Zaffagnini; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Superior return to sports rate after patellar tendon autograft over patellar tendon allograft in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Michèle N J Keizer; Roy A G Hoogeslag; Jos J A M van Raay; Egbert Otten; Reinoud W Brouwer
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Change in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Choice and Outcomes Over Time.

Authors:  Christopher C Kaeding; Angela D Pedroza; Emily K Reinke; Laura J Huston; Timothy E Hewett; David C Flanigan; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2017-08-26       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  Risk Factors and Predictors of Subsequent ACL Injury in Either Knee After ACL Reconstruction: Prospective Analysis of 2488 Primary ACL Reconstructions From the MOON Cohort.

Authors:  Christopher C Kaeding; Angela D Pedroza; Emily K Reinke; Laura J Huston; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Inferior results after revision ACL reconstructions: a comparison with primary ACL reconstructions.

Authors:  Tone Gifstad; Jon Olav Drogset; Annja Viset; Torbjørn Grøntvedt; Grete Sofie Hortemo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  What Is the Mid-term Failure Rate of Revision ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alberto Grassi; Christopher Kim; Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli; Stefano Zaffagnini; Annunziato Amendola
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Double-bundle non-anatomic ACL revision reconstruction with allograft resulted in a low revision rate at 10 years.

Authors:  Luca Macchiarola; Nicola Pizza; Vittorio Patania; Alberto Grassi; Giacomo Dal Fabbro; Maurilio Marcacci; Stefano Zaffagnini
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 4.114

9.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus allograft in skeletally mature patients aged 25 years or younger.

Authors:  Patrick W Kane; Jocelyn Wascher; Christopher C Dodson; Sommer Hammoud; Steven B Cohen; Michael G Ciccotti
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Association Between Graft Choice and 6-Year Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the MARS Cohort.

Authors:  Rick W Wright; Laura J Huston; Amanda K Haas; Jacquelyn S Pennings; Christina R Allen; Daniel E Cooper; Thomas M DeBerardino; Warren R Dunn; Brett Brick A Lantz; Kurt P Spindler; Michael J Stuart; John P Albright; Annunziato Ned Amendola; Jack T Andrish; Christopher C Annunziata; Robert A Arciero; Bernard R Bach; Champ L Baker; Arthur R Bartolozzi; Keith M Baumgarten; Jeffery R Bechler; Jeffrey H Berg; Geoffrey A Bernas; Stephen F Brockmeier; Robert H Brophy; Charles A Bush-Joseph; J Brad Butler V; John D Campbell; James L Carey; James E Carpenter; Brian J Cole; Jonathan M Cooper; Charles L Cox; R Alexander Creighton; Diane L Dahm; Tal S David; David C Flanigan; Robert W Frederick; Theodore J Ganley; Elizabeth A Garofoli; Charles J Gatt; Steven R Gecha; James Robert Giffin; Sharon L Hame; Jo A Hannafin; Christopher D Harner; Norman Lindsay Harris; Keith S Hechtman; Elliott B Hershman; Rudolf G Hoellrich; David C Johnson; Timothy S Johnson; Morgan H Jones; Christopher C Kaeding; Ganesh V Kamath; Thomas E Klootwyk; Bruce A Levy; C Benjamin Ma; G Peter Maiers; Robert G Marx; Matthew J Matava; Gregory M Mathien; David R McAllister; Eric C McCarty; Robert G McCormack; Bruce S Miller; Carl W Nissen; Daniel F O'Neill; Brett D Owens; Richard D Parker; Mark L Purnell; Arun J Ramappa; Michael A Rauh; Arthur C Rettig; Jon K Sekiya; Kevin G Shea; Orrin H Sherman; James R Slauterbeck; Matthew V Smith; Jeffrey T Spang; Ltc Steven J Svoboda; Timothy N Taft; Joachim J Tenuta; Edwin M Tingstad; Armando F Vidal; Darius G Viskontas; Richard A White; James S Williams; Michelle L Wolcott; Brian R Wolf; James J York
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 7.010

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.