Literature DB >> 25108904

Hamstring autograft versus soft-tissue allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Gregory L Cvetanovich1, Randy Mascarenhas2, Maristella F Saccomanno3, Nikhil N Verma2, Brian J Cole2, Charles A Bush-Joseph2, Bernard R Bach2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstring autograft versus soft-tissue allograft by systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled studies comparing hamstring autograft with soft-tissue allograft in ACL reconstruction was performed. Studies were identified by strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics were reported. Where possible, the data were pooled and a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dichotomous data were reported as risk ratios, whereas continuous data were reported as standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed by use of I(2) for each meta-analysis. Study methodologic quality was analyzed with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score and Jadad scale.
RESULTS: Five studies with 504 combined patients (251 autograft and 253 allograft; 374 male and 130 female patients) with a mean age of 29.9 ± 2.2 years were included. The allografts used were fresh-frozen hamstring, irradiated hamstring, mixture of fresh-frozen and cryopreserved hamstring, fresh-frozen tibialis anterior, and fresh-frozen Achilles tendon grafts without bone blocks. The mean follow-up period was 47.4 ± 26.9 months, with a mean follow-up rate of 83.3% ± 8.6%. Two studies found a longer operative time with autograft than with allograft (77.1 ± 2.0 minutes v 59.9 ± 0.9 minutes, P = .008). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between autografts and allografts for any outcome measures (P > .05 for all tests). One study found significantly greater laxity for irradiated allograft than for autograft. The methodologic quality of the 5 studies was poor, with a mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score of 54.4 ± 6.9 and mean Jadad score of 1.6 ± 1.5.
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials, there is no statistically significant difference in outcome between patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft and those undergoing ACL reconstruction with soft-tissue allograft. These results may not extrapolate to younger patient populations. The methodology of the available randomized controlled trials comparing hamstring autograft and soft-tissue allograft is poor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
Copyright © 2014 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25108904     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.05.040

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


  18 in total

1.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and rehabilitation: predictors of functional outcome.

Authors:  Francesco Della Villa; Margherita Ricci; Francesco Perdisa; Giuseppe Filardo; Jacopo Gamberini; Daniele Caminati; Stefano Della Villa
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2016-01-31

2.  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 3.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-rehabilitation research methodological quality: a systematic review with world region comparisons.

Authors:  Artur Proniewicz; Paul Mazzone; John Nyland; Jeff Wera; Justin Givens
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Hamstring autograft maturation is superior to tibialis allograft following anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Sang-Gyun Kim; Soo-Hyun Kim; Jae-Gyoon Kim; Ki-Mo Jang; Hong-Chul Lim; Ji-Hoon Bae
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Does a different dose of gamma irradiation have the same effect on five different types of tendon allografts? - a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Gyorgy Hangody; Gábor Szebényi; Bence Abonyi; Rita Kiss; László Hangody; Károly Pap
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Hip Capsular Reconstruction Using Dermal Allograft.

Authors:  Jorge Chahla; Chase S Dean; Eduardo Soares; William R Mook; Marc J Philippon
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2016-05-11

7.  In situ cross-sectional area of the quadriceps tendon using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging significantly correlates with the intraoperative diameter of the quadriceps tendon autograft.

Authors:  Satoshi Takeuchi; Benjamin B Rothrauff; Masashi Taguchi; Ryo Kanto; Kentaro Onishi; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  A Systematic Review of Failed Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Autograft Compared With Allograft in Young Patients.

Authors:  David Wasserstein; Ujash Sheth; Alison Cabrera; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.843

9.  A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on the Topic of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.

Authors:  Michael J Anderson; William M Browning; Christopher E Urband; Melissa A Kluczynski; Leslie J Bisson
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2016-03-15

10.  A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Second-Look Arthroscopic Findings between Remnant-Preserving Tibialis Tendon Allograft and Hamstring Tendon Autograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Matched-Pair Design.

Authors:  You Keun Kim; Jong Hyun Ahn; Jae Doo Yoo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2017-11-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.