Patrick W Kane1,2, Jocelyn Wascher3, Christopher C Dodson3, Sommer Hammoud3, Steven B Cohen3, Michael G Ciccotti3. 1. The Rothman Institute of Orthopaedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, 925 Chestnut Street, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. Patrick.w.kane@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Room 516 College Building, 1025 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. Patrick.w.kane@gmail.com. 3. The Rothman Institute of Orthopaedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, 925 Chestnut Street, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes and revision rates of skeletally mature patients aged 25 years or younger who have undergone either BPTB autograft or deep-frozen, non-irradiated BPTB allograft ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-four patients aged 25 or younger at the time of surgery were identified as having a transtibial ACL reconstruction with either a BPTB autograft or deep-frozen, non-irradiated BPTB allograft by one senior surgeon (101 autografts vs. 123 allografts) over the study time period. Primary outcome measure included the need for ACL revision. One hundred and nineteen patients with at least 2-year clinical follow-up agreed to participate in secondary outcome measurement arm of the study and were administered the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form. RESULTS: The median Lysholm scores were 95 (40-100) and 95 (68-100) and the median IKDC scores were 95.4 (54.0-100) and 95.4 (72.4-100) in the allograft and autograft groups, respectively. The differences in the Lysholm scores and the IKDC scores were not statistically significant (P = n.s.). There were 13 patients requiring ACL revision, 12 allograft versus one autograft (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Although there is no significant difference in patient-rated outcome between ACL reconstructions using BPTB autografts versus BPTB allografts, a significantly higher rate of ACL revision was found in allograft patients. The results of our study support a growing body of literature that BPTB autograft reconstruction leads to lower retear rates in younger individuals, an important factor in the graft selection process for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes and revision rates of skeletally mature patients aged 25 years or younger who have undergone either BPTB autograft or deep-frozen, non-irradiated BPTB allograft ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-four patients aged 25 or younger at the time of surgery were identified as having a transtibial ACL reconstruction with either a BPTB autograft or deep-frozen, non-irradiated BPTB allograft by one senior surgeon (101 autografts vs. 123 allografts) over the study time period. Primary outcome measure included the need for ACL revision. One hundred and nineteen patients with at least 2-year clinical follow-up agreed to participate in secondary outcome measurement arm of the study and were administered the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form. RESULTS: The median Lysholm scores were 95 (40-100) and 95 (68-100) and the median IKDC scores were 95.4 (54.0-100) and 95.4 (72.4-100) in the allograft and autograft groups, respectively. The differences in the Lysholm scores and the IKDC scores were not statistically significant (P = n.s.). There were 13 patients requiring ACL revision, 12 allograft versus one autograft (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Although there is no significant difference in patient-rated outcome between ACL reconstructions using BPTB autografts versus BPTB allografts, a significantly higher rate of ACL revision was found in allograft patients. The results of our study support a growing body of literature that BPTB autograft reconstruction leads to lower retear rates in younger individuals, an important factor in the graft selection process for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Karen K Briggs; Jack Lysholm; Yelverton Tegner; William G Rodkey; Mininder S Kocher; J Richard Steadman Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 6.202
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
Authors: Markus P Arnold; Jacob G Calcei; Nicole Vogel; Robert A Magnussen; Mark Clatworthy; Tim Spalding; John D Campbell; John A Bergfeld; Seth L Sherman Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 4.342
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
Authors: Avinesh Agarwalla; Anirudh K Gowd; Joseph N Liu; Grant H Garcia; Daniel D Bohl; Nikhil N Verma; Brian Forsythe Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-02-19
Authors: Elaine C Schmidt; Matthew Chin; Julien T Aoyama; Theodore J Ganley; Kevin G Shea; Michael W Hast Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-01-23