Literature DB >> 25081312

Comparison of allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft survival in an active adolescent cohort.

Glenn H Engelman1, Patrick M Carry2, Kirtley G Hitt2, John D Polousky3, Armando F Vidal4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Graft selection for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructive surgery is a controversial topic. Few studies have compared graft outcomes in adolescents.
PURPOSE: To identify factors related to ACL graft failure in an adolescent cohort. STUDY
DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: After institutional review board approval was obtained, adolescent subjects (age range, 11-18 years) who underwent primary ACL reconstruction surgery at a large tertiary pediatric hospital between July 2005 and July 2009 were identified through a query of International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, diagnostic and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Subject data were obtained by means of a retrospective chart review, phone survey, and the administration of functional knee outcome instruments. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to analyze factors related to graft survival.
RESULTS: The average ages at surgery in the allograft (n = 38) and autograft (n = 35) groups were 15.29 ± 2.24 and 15.60 ± 1.57 years, respectively. There were 11 graft failures (28.95%) in the allograft group compared with 4 graft failures (11.43%) in the autograft group. In the multivariate model, graft type (P = .0352) and postoperative knee laxity according to the Lachman test (P = .0217) were the only variables significantly related to graft survival. The hazard of graft failure was 4.4 (95% CI, 1.23-18.89) times greater in the allograft group compared with the autograft group. The hazard of graft failure was 5.28 times (95% CI, 1.1-12.72; P = .0217) greater for a subject who demonstrated increased postoperative knee laxity relative to the contralateral knee. The risk for autograft failure tended to remain constant 24 to 48 months after initial surgery, whereas the risk for allograft failure continued to increase during postoperative months 24 to 48. There were no differences (P > .05) between the allograft and autograft groups with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lysholm score, and the rate of return to previous activity level.
CONCLUSION: Graft type and postoperative knee laxity were identified as significant predictors of graft survival. On the basis of this large retrospective cohort, we recommend the use of autogenous grafts in children and adolescents undergoing primary, transphyseal ACL reconstruction. Patients who demonstrate increased translation during a postoperative Lachman test should be carefully followed because of concerns for subsequent graft failure.
© 2014 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  adolescents; allograft; anterior cruciate ligament; autograft; graft survival

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25081312     DOI: 10.1177/0363546514541935

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


  41 in total

1.  A comparison of revision and rerupture rates of ACL reconstruction between autografts and allografts in the skeletally immature.

Authors:  Ian R Nelson; Jason Chen; Rebecca Love; Brent R Davis; Gregory B Maletis; Tadashi T Funahashi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outcomes.

Authors:  Devin C Peterson; Olufemi R Ayeni
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-12

3.  A Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACL-R) Using Hamstring Tendon Autograft and Tibialis Anterior Tendon Allograft: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Saroj Rai; Sheng-Yang Jin; Bimal Rai; Nira Tamang; Wei Huang; Xian-Zhe Liu; Chun-Qing Meng; Hong Wang
Journal:  Curr Med Sci       Date:  2018-10-20

Review 4.  Bridge-enhanced ACL repair: A review of the science and the pathway through FDA investigational device approval.

Authors:  Benedikt L Proffen; Gabriel S Perrone; Gordon Roberts; Martha M Murray
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 3.934

5.  Effect of High-Grade Preoperative Knee Laxity on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes.

Authors:  Robert A Magnussen; Emily K Reinke; Laura J Huston; Timothy E Hewett; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Contact times of change-of-direction manoeuvres are influenced by age and the type of sports: a novel protocol using the SpeedCourt® system.

Authors:  Leonard Achenbach; Werner Krutsch; Matthias Koch; Florian Zeman; Michael Nerlich; Peter Angele
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Patient and surgical characteristics that affect revision risk in dynamic intraligamentary stabilization of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Philipp Henle; Kathrin S Bieri; Manuel Brand; Emin Aghayev; Jessica Bettfuehr; Janosch Haeberli; Martina Kess; Stefan Eggli
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Does the Utilization of Allograft Tissue in Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients Restore Patellar Stability?

Authors:  Eric Hohn; Nirav K Pandya
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Bench-to-bedside: Bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair.

Authors:  Gabriel S Perrone; Benedikt L Proffen; Ata M Kiapour; Jakob T Sieker; Braden C Fleming; Martha M Murray
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-07-09       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  Technical Considerations in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction for Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics.

Authors:  Jeremy M Burnham; Elmar Herbst; Thierry Pauyo; Thomas Pfeiffer; Darren L Johnson; Freddie H Fu; Volker Musahl
Journal:  Oper Tech Orthop       Date:  2017-02-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.