BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated a higher risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft, but limited data are available comparing outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) with autograft versus allograft. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of autograft versus allograft for primary PCLR. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to locate studies (level of evidence I-III) comparing clinical outcomes of autograft versus allograft in patients undergoing primary PCLR with the conventional transtibial technique. Search terms used were "posterior cruciate ligament," "autograft," and "allograft." Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rate, examination of knee laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores (Lysholm, Tegner, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], and objective IKDC scores). RESULTS: Five studies (2 level II, 3 level III) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 132 patients undergoing PCLR with autograft (semitendinosus-gracilis or bone-patellar tendon-bone) and 110 patients with allograft (tibialis anterior, Achilles tendon, or bone-patellar tendon-bone). No patients experienced graft failure. Average anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity was significantly higher in allograft patients (3.8 mm) compared with autograft patients (3.1 mm) ( P < .01). Subjective IKDC, Lysholm, and Tegner scores improved for both groups across studies, without a significant difference in improvement between groups except in one study, in which Lysholm scores improved to a significantly greater extent in the autograft group ( P < .01). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing primary PCLR with either autograft or allograft can be expected to experience improvement in clinical outcomes. Autograft patients experienced less AP knee laxity postoperatively, although the clinical significance of this is unclear and subjective outcomes improved substantially and to a similar degree in both groups.
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated a higher risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft, but limited data are available comparing outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) with autograft versus allograft. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of autograft versus allograft for primary PCLR. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to locate studies (level of evidence I-III) comparing clinical outcomes of autograft versus allograft in patients undergoing primary PCLR with the conventional transtibial technique. Search terms used were "posterior cruciate ligament," "autograft," and "allograft." Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rate, examination of knee laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores (Lysholm, Tegner, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], and objective IKDC scores). RESULTS: Five studies (2 level II, 3 level III) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 132 patients undergoing PCLR with autograft (semitendinosus-gracilis or bone-patellar tendon-bone) and 110 patients with allograft (tibialis anterior, Achilles tendon, or bone-patellar tendon-bone). No patients experienced graft failure. Average anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity was significantly higher in allograft patients (3.8 mm) compared with autograft patients (3.1 mm) ( P < .01). Subjective IKDC, Lysholm, and Tegner scores improved for both groups across studies, without a significant difference in improvement between groups except in one study, in which Lysholm scores improved to a significantly greater extent in the autograft group ( P < .01). CONCLUSION:Patients undergoing primary PCLR with either autograft or allograft can be expected to experience improvement in clinical outcomes. Autograft patients experienced less AP knee laxity postoperatively, although the clinical significance of this is unclear and subjective outcomes improved substantially and to a similar degree in both groups.
Authors: Elizabeth A Aisenbrey; Andrew Tomaschke; Eric Kleinjan; Archish Muralidharan; Cecilia Pascual-Garrido; Robert R McLeod; Virginia L Ferguson; Stephanie J Bryant Journal: Macromol Biosci Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 4.979
Authors: Kyoung Ho Yoon; Jung-Suk Kim; Jae-Young Park; Soo Yeon Park; Raymond Yeak Dieu Kiat; Sang-Gyun Kim Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-02-23
Authors: Gianna M Aliberti; Matthew J Kraeutler; Cadence Miskimin; Anthony J Scillia; John W Belk; Mary K Mulcahey Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-10-19
Authors: Chris H Dreyer; Marina Rasmussen; Rasmus Hestehave Pedersen; Søren Overgaard; Ming Ding Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Philipp W Winkler; Bálint Zsidai; Nyaluma N Wagala; Jonathan D Hughes; Alexandra Horvath; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Kristian Samuelsson; Volker Musahl Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 4.342