Literature DB >> 23928319

Autograft versus nonirradiated allograft tissue for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.

Michael W Mariscalco1, Robert A Magnussen, Divyesh Mehta, Timothy E Hewett, David C Flanigan, Christopher C Kaeding.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An autograft has traditionally been the gold standard for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but the use of allograft tissue has increased in recent years. While numerous studies have demonstrated that irradiated allografts are associated with increased failure rates, some report excellent results after ACLR with nonirradiated allografts. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether the use of nonirradiated allograft tissue is associated with poorer outcomes when compared with autografts. HYPOTHESIS: Patients undergoing ACLR with autografts versus nonirradiated allografts will demonstrate no significant differences in graft failure risk, laxity on postoperative physical examination, or differences in patient-oriented outcome scores. STUDY
DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify prospective or retrospective comparative studies (evidence level 1, 2, or 3) of autografts versus nonirradiated allografts for ACLR. Outcome data included graft failure based on clinical findings and instrumented laxity, postoperative laxity on physical examination, and patient-reported outcome scores. Studies were excluded if they did not specify whether the allograft had been irradiated. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by 2 examiners.
RESULTS: Nine studies comparing autografts and nonirradiated allografts were included. Six of the 9 studies compared bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts with BPTB allografts. Two studies compared hamstring tendon autografts to hamstring tendon allografts, and 1 study compared hamstring tendon autografts to tibialis anterior allografts. The mean patient age in 7 of 9 studies ranged from 24.5 to 32 years, with 1 study including only patients older than 40 years and another not reporting patient age. The mean follow-up duration was 24 to 94 months. Six of 9 studies reported clinical graft failure rates, 8 of 9 reported postoperative instrumented laxity measurements, 7 of 9 reported postoperative physical examination findings, and all studies reported patient-reported outcome scores. This review demonstrated no statistically significant difference between autografts and nonirradiated allografts in any outcome measure.
CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in graft failure rate, postoperative laxity, or patient-reported outcome scores when comparing ACLR with autografts to nonirradiated allografts in this systematic review. These findings apply to patients in their late 20s and early 30s. Caution is advised when considering extrapolation of these findings to younger, more active cohorts.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACL; allograft; autograft; radiation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23928319      PMCID: PMC4163684          DOI: 10.1177/0363546513497566

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  40 in total

Review 1.  Does the graft source really matter in the outcome of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? An evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction results: a systematic review.

Authors:  Timothy E Foster; Brian L Wolfe; Scott Ryan; Lorenzo Silvestri; Elizabeth Krall Kaye
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Comparison of perioperative morbidity of anterior cruciate ligament autografts versus allografts.

Authors:  S R Saddemi; A D Frogameni; P J Fenton; J Hartman; W Hartman
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 3- to 5-year outcome.

Authors:  C D Harner; E Olson; J J Irrgang; S Silverstein; F H Fu; M Silbey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries.

Authors:  Y Tegner; J Lysholm
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Comparison of clinical results and second-look arthroscopy findings after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3 different types of grafts.

Authors:  Jung Hwan Lee; Dae Kyung Bae; Sang Jun Song; Seung Mok Cho; Kyoung Ho Yoon
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 4.772

6.  Comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using patellar tendon autograft or allograft.

Authors:  D R Stringham; C J Pelmas; R T Burks; A P Newman; R L Marcus
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 7.  Does autograft choice determine intermediate-term outcome of ACL reconstruction?

Authors:  Robert A Magnussen; James L Carey; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Allograft Versus Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Predictors of Failure From a MOON Prospective Longitudinal Cohort.

Authors:  Christopher C Kaeding; Brian Aros; Angela Pedroza; Eric Pifel; Annunziato Amendola; Jack T Andrish; Warren R Dunn; Robert G Marx; Eric C McCarty; Richard D Parker; Rick W Wright; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.843

Review 9.  A meta-analysis of stability of autografts compared to allografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Chadwick Prodromos; Brian Joyce; Kelvin Shi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-04-17       Impact factor: 4.114

10.  Clinical use of fresh, frozen soft tissue allografts.

Authors:  E J Olson; C D Harner; F H Fu; M B Silbey
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  34 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Small-molecule based musculoskeletal regenerative engineering.

Authors:  Kevin W-H Lo; Tao Jiang; Keith A Gagnon; Clarke Nelson; Cato T Laurencin
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 19.536

3.  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 4.  The current state of scaffolds for musculoskeletal regenerative applications.

Authors:  Benjamin D Smith; Daniel A Grande
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 20.543

Review 5.  What Factors Influence the Biomechanical Properties of Allograft Tissue for ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Drew A Lansdown; Andrew J Riff; Molly Meadows; Adam B Yanke; Bernard R Bach
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Network meta-analysis of knee outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with various types of tendon grafts.

Authors:  Xiong-Gang Yang; Feng Wang; Xin He; Jiang-Tao Feng; Yong-Cheng Hu; Hao Zhang; Li Yang; Kunchi Hua
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Comparison of results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a four-strand single semitendinosus or a semitendinosus and gracilis tendon.

Authors:  Hee-Soo Kyung; Hyun-Joo Lee; Chang-Wug Oh; Han-Pyo Hong
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Evaluation of meniscal mechanics and proteoglycan content in a modified anterior cruciate ligament transection model.

Authors:  Kristine M Fischenich; Garrett A Coatney; John H Haverkamp; Keith D Button; Charlie DeCamp; Roger C Haut; Tammy L Haut Donahue
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.097

Review 9.  Objective measurements of static anterior and rotational knee laxity.

Authors:  Caroline Mouton; Daniel Theisen; Romain Seil
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-06

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.