Literature DB >> 26987981

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.

Mohsen Mardani-Kivi1, Mahmoud Karimi-Mobarakeh2, Sohrab Keyhani3, Khashayar Saheb-Ekhtiari4,5, Keyvan Hashemi-Motlagh1,2,3,6, Ali Sarvi3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Selection of various grafts for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions have been employed in order to improve on stability and function of the knee. This study aimed to compare stability and function of the knee after ACL arthroscopic reconstruction by single-loop tibialis posterior (TP) allograft and four-strand hamstring tendon (HT) autograft.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective cohort study included 104 patients in the TP group matched with 118 patients in the HT group in terms of demographic characteristics, associated meniscus injury, subjective and objective knee characteristics. All patients were followed up for at least three years with regards to mentioned criteria and time of return to former activities.
RESULTS: The mean (range) age of TP (88 males and 16 females) and HT (99 males and 19 females) groups was 34.4 (19-48) and 36.9 (20-51) years, respectively. Median (range) follow-up durations were 55 (37-71) and 56 (36-72) months, respectively. No significant differences were observed post-operatively, regarding subjective and objective evaluations. Additionally, time duration for return to former activity was similar in both groups. Post-operative paresthesia and numbness of medial aspect of the calf were observed for two months in eight patients of the HT group which persisted to the final visit in one case. No similar symptom was seen in the TP group.
CONCLUSION: In arthroscopic ACL reconstruction, fresh frozen doubled TP allograft compared to HT autograft was equally effective in restoring function and stability of knee, permitting return to former activities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective comparative, Level III.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Allograft; Anterior cruciate ligament; Autograft; Functional outcome; Hamstring tendon; Tibialis posterior tendon

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26987981     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3164-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  23 in total

1.  A biomechanical evaluation of anterior and posterior tibialis tendons as suitable single-loop anterior cruciate ligament grafts.

Authors:  Tammy L Haut Donahue; Stephen M Howell; Maury L Hull; Colin Gregersen
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 2.  Autograft Versus Allograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Review of Overlapping Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Chao Zeng; Shu-guang Gao; Hui Li; Tuo Yang; Wei Luo; Yu-sheng Li; Guang-hua Lei
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Prospective comparison of auto and allograft hamstring tendon constructs for ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Cory M Edgar; Scott Zimmer; Sanjeev Kakar; Hugh Jones; Anthony A Schepsis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-06-25       Impact factor: 4.176

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

Authors:  Kang Sun; Shao-qi Tian; Ji-hua Zhang; Chang-suo Xia; Cai-long Zhang; Teng-bo Yu
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2009-04-17       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  Comparison between hamstring autograft and free tendon Achilles allograft: minimum 2-year follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using EndoButton and Intrafix.

Authors:  Jung Ho Noh; Seung Rim Yi; Sang Jun Song; Seong Wan Kim; Woo Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 4.342

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.  Effects of freezing on the biomechanical and structural properties of human posterior tibial tendons.

Authors:  Sandro Giannini; Roberto Buda; Francesco Di Caprio; Patrizia Agati; Adriana Bigi; Viviana De Pasquale; Alessandro Ruggeri
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstring tendon autograft and fresh-frozen allograft: a prospective, randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Kang Sun; Jihua Zhang; Yan Wang; Changsuo Xia; Cailong Zhang; Tengbo Yu; Shaoqi Tian
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2011-03-25       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  The effect of graft tissue on anterior cruciate ligament outcomes: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing autograft hamstrings with fresh-frozen anterior tibialis allograft.

Authors:  Keith W Lawhorn; Stephen M Howell; Steve M Traina; John E Gottlieb; Thomas D Meade; Howard I Freedberg
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.772

10.  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

View more
  8 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Outcomes Following ACL Reconstruction Based on Graft Type: Are all Grafts Equivalent?

Authors:  Matthew Widner; Mark Dunleavy; Scott Lynch
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2019-12

4.  Features of human autologous hamstring graft elongation after pre-tensioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Masataka Fujii; Takayuki Furumatsu; Shinichi Miyazawa; Takaaki Tanaka; Hiroto Inoue; Yuya Kodama; Kenji Masuda; Noritaka Seno; Toshifumi Ozaki
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Second-Look Arthroscopic Evaluation and Clinical Outcomes of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Autograft and Hybrid Graft: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Hongtao Xu; Jiangtao Dong; Dongmei Xin; Jian Zhang; Kai Kang; Shijun Gao
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-11-23

6.  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

7.  Graft choice for anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: The comparison between thin autograft and thick hybrid graft. An observational study.

Authors:  Hongtao Xu; Weiwei Lin; Guorong Jin; Dongmei Xin; Jian Zhang; Kai Kang; Jiangtao Dong; Shijun Gao; Baicheng Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  A comparative analysis of the efficacy of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autologous ligament grafting at different time points.

Authors:  Bo Hu; Feng Gao; Chunbao Li; Boqing Zhang; Mingyang An; Ming Lu; Yufeng Liu; Yujie Liu
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 3.124

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.