Literature DB >> 29287949

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Hybrid Graft Versus a Hamstring Autograft.

Hong-De Wang1, Shi-Jun Gao1, Ying-Ze Zhang2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with a hybrid graft versus an autograft after 3 years of follow-up.
METHODS: Among 57 patients with an ACL injury who underwent ACL reconstruction, 28 patients received a hybrid graft (gracilis and semitendinosus tendon autograft plus a soft tissue allograft) and 29 patients received an autograft (gracilis and semitendinosus tendon autograft). The 2 groups were compared after a minimum 3-year follow-up regarding International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) assessment of knee function and stability, pivot-shift test, Lachman test, and KT-1000 side-to-side differences. The patient-reported Tegner activity score, Lysholm score, and subjective IKDC score were also compared. Graft failures were identified by patient-reported outcomes, physical examinations, or magnetic resonance imaging, and were confirmed on second-look arthroscopy; failure rate was compared between groups.
RESULTS: At final follow-up, the 2 groups significantly differed in pivot-shift test result (P = .013) and Lachman test result (P = .027). The failure rate tended to be greater in the hybrid graft group (14.3%) than in the autograft group (3.4%) (P = .148). All 5 patients with failed graft reconstruction were revised after second-look arthroscopy. The KT-1000 side-to-side differences at final follow-up were significantly inferior in the hybrid graft group (3.5 ± 2.0) compared with the autograft group (2.5 ± 1.0, P = .024). The hybrid graft group also had a lower mean Lysholm score (P = .000) and subjective IKDC score (P = .006) than the autograft group. The mean Tegner activity score was 6.8 ± 0.8 in the hybrid graft group and 6.9 ± 0.6 in the autograft group (P = .436).
CONCLUSIONS: The knee stability and patient-reported scores in the autograft-irradiated allograft hybrid graft ACL reconstruction group were significantly inferior compared with those in the autograft ACL reconstruction group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29287949     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.11.020

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


  9 in total

1.  Small hamstring autograft is defined by a cut-off diameter of 7 mm and not recommended with allograft augmentation in single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Huijun Kang; Conglei Dong; Fei Wang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Slope-reducing tibial osteotomy decreases ACL-graft forces and anterior tibial translation under axial load.

Authors:  Florian B Imhoff; Julian Mehl; Brendan J Comer; Elifho Obopilwe; Mark P Cote; Matthias J Feucht; James D Wylie; Andreas B Imhoff; Robert A Arciero; Knut Beitzel
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Hybrid graft vs autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lei Wang; Jian-Gang Cao; Jun Liu
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 2.423

4.  Early Outcomes of Adolescent ACL Reconstruction With Hybrid Hamstring Tendon Autograft-Allograft Versus Hamstring Tendon Autograft Alone.

Authors:  Benton E Heyworth; Evan T Zheng; Patrick Vavken; Elizabeth S Liotta; Dennis E Kramer; Yi-Meng Yen; Lyle J Micheli; Mininder S Kocher
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-01-22

5.  Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hybrid Graft versus Autograft: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ning Li; Xiali Xue; Huan Tu; Ming Zhang; Chengqi He
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2021-10-06       Impact factor: 2.682

6.  Optimal Surgical Treatment Method for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yudi Wu; Yajia Li; Jia Guo; Qianxiang Li; Jianhuang Wu; Ziqin Cao; Yulin Song
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2022-08-23

7.  Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Hong-De Wang; Fu-Shun Wang; Shi-Jun Gao; Ying-Ze Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic findings of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft, hybrid graft, and allograft.

Authors:  Xiaozuo Zheng; Yang Hu; Peng Xie; Tong Li; Yu-E Feng; Juyuan Gu; Shijun Gao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.