Allograft Versus Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Kaeding, Christopher C.; Aros, Brian; Pedroza, Angela; Pifel, Eric; Amendola, Annunziato; Andrish, Jack T.; Dunn, Warren R.; Marx, Robert G.; McCarty, Eric C.; Parker, Richard D.; Wright, Rick W.; Spindler, Kurt P.

doi:10.1177/1941738110386185

Cited by 435 publications

(239 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

220

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It has also been shown that the risk of graft failure decreases with increasing age. 16 Therefore, the studies in this systematic review did not evaluate allograft use in the highest risk population for graft failure, and this fact could bias the findings. Application of the findings of this study to a younger, more active population would not be appropriate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autograft Versus Nonirradiated Allograft Tissue for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background An autograft has traditionally been the gold standard for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but the use of allograft tissue has increased in recent years. While numerous studies have demonstrated that irradiated allografts are associated with increased failure rates, some report excellent results after ACLR with nonirradiated allografts. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether the use of nonirradiated allograft tissue is associated with poorer outcomes when compared with autografts. Hypothesis Patients undergoing ACLR with autografts versus nonirradiated allografts will demonstrate no significant differences in graft failure risk, laxity on postoperative physical examination, or differences in patient-oriented outcome scores. Study Design Systematic review. Methods A systematic review was performed to identify prospective or retrospective comparative studies (evidence level 1, 2, or 3) of autografts versus nonirradiated allografts for ACLR. Outcome data included graft failure based on clinical findings and instrumented laxity, postoperative laxity on physical examination, and patient-reported outcome scores. Studies were excluded if they did not specify whether the allograft had been irradiated. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by 2 examiners. Results Nine studies comparing autografts and nonirradiated allografts were included. Six of the 9 studies compared bone– patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autografts with BPTB allografts. Two studies compared hamstring tendon autografts to hamstring tendon allografts, and 1 study compared hamstring tendon autografts to tibialis anterior allografts. The mean patient age in 7 of 9 studies ranged from 24.5 to 32 years, with 1 study including only patients older than 40 years and another not reporting patient age. The mean follow-up duration was 24 to 94 months. Six of 9 studies reported clinical graft failure rates, 8 of 9 reported postoperative instrumented laxity measurements, 7 of 9 reported postoperative physical examination findings, and all studies reported patient-reported outcome scores. This review demonstrated no statistically significant difference between autografts and nonir-radiated allografts in any outcome measure. Conclusion No significant differences were found in graft failure rate, postoperative laxity, or patient-reported outcome scores when comparing ACLR with autografts to nonirradiated allografts in this systematic review. These findings apply to patients in their late 20s and early 30s. Caution is advised when considering extrapolation of these findings to younger, more active cohorts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autograft Versus Nonirradiated Allograft Tissue for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2,3,6,7,8,15,18,20,22,32,40,42,43 Our previous modeling longitudinally followed over 400 ACLR subjects at 2 and 6 years. 39 Despite identifying many significant risk factors for worse outcomes, we had insufficient sample size to determine if meniscal and articular cartilage pathology documented at the time of index ACLR has any effect on patient-reported outcomes following ACLR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Articular Cartilage Lesions and Meniscus Tears Predictive of IKDC, KOOS, and Marx Activity Level Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?

Cox¹,

Huston²,

Dunn³

et al. 2014

Am J Sports Med

Self Cite

226

247

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Identifying risk factors for inferior outcomes after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is important for prognosis and future treatment. The goal of this study was to determine whether articular cartilage and meniscal variables are predictive of 3 validated sports outcome instruments after ACLR. Hypothesis/Purpose We hypothesized that articular cartilage lesions and meniscus tears/treatment would be predictors of the IKDC, KOOS (all 5 subscales), and Marx activity level at 6 years following ACLR. Study Design Prospective cohort, Level 1 Methods Between 2002 and 2004, 1512 ACLR subjects were prospectively enrolled and followed longitudinally with the IKDC, KOOS, and Marx activity score completed at entry, 2, and 6 years. A logistic regression model was built incorporating variables from patient demographics, surgical technique, articular cartilage injuries, and meniscus tears/treatment to determine the predictors (risk factors) of IKDC, KOOS, and Marx at 6 years. Results We completed a minimum follow-up on 86% (1307/1512) of our cohort at 6 years. The cohort was 56% male, had a median age of 23 years at the time of enrollment, with 76% reporting a non-contact injury mechanism. Incidence of concomitant pathology at the time of surgery consisted of the following: articular cartilage (medial femoral condyle [MFC]-25%, lateral femoral condyle [LFC]-20%, medial tibial plateau [MTP]-6%, lateral tibial plateau [LTP]-12%, patella-20%, trochlear-9%) and meniscal (medial-38%, lateral-46%). Both articular cartilage lesions and meniscal tears were significant predictors of 6-year outcomes on IKDC and KOOS. Grade 3 or 4 articular cartilage lesions (excluding patella) significantly reduced IKDC and KOOS scores at 6 years. IKDC demonstrated worse outcomes with the presence of a grade 3-4 chondral lesion on the MFC, MTP, and LFC. Likewise, KOOS was negatively affected by cartilage injury. The sole significant predictor of reduced Marx activity was the presence of a grade 4 lesion on the MFC. Lateral meniscus repairs did not correlate with inferior results, but medial meniscus repairs predicted worse IKDC and KOOS scores. Lateral meniscus tears left alone significantly improved prognosis. Small partial meniscectomies (<33%) on the medial meniscus fared worse, but conversely, larger excisions (>50%) on either the medial or lateral menisci improved prognosis. Analogous to previous studies, other significant predictors of lower outcome scores were lower baseline scores, higher BMI, lower education level, smoking, and ACL revisions. Conclusions Both articular cartilage injury and meniscal tears/treatment at the time of ACLR were significant predictors of IKDC and KOOS scores 6 years following ACLR. Similarly, having a grade 4 MFC lesion significantly reduced a patient’s Marx activity level score at 6 years.

show abstract

“…Recent evidence indicates that subsequent ACL injuries occur with a higher frequency than previously thought; however, variability in the reported rate of second injuries remains. 12,26,29,33 Wright et al 33 prospectively reported that 1 in 17 (6%) patients sustained a second ACL injury within 2 years after ACLR. Of these, an equal occurrence of ipsilateral retears and contralateral tears was observed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence of Second ACL Injuries 2 Years After Primary ACL Reconstruction and Return to Sport

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The incidence of second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in the first 12 months after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and return to sport (RTS) in a young, active population has been reported to be 15 times greater than that in a previously uninjured cohort. There are no reported estimates of whether this high relative rate of injury continues beyond the first year after RTS and ACLR. Hypothesis The incidence rate of a subsequent ACL injury in the 2 years after ACLR and RTS would be less than the incidence rate reported within the first 12 months after RTS but greater than the ACL injury incidence rate in an uninjured cohort of young athletes. Study Design Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods Seventy-eight patients (mean age, 17.1 ± 3.1 years) who underwent ACLR and were ready to return to a pivoting/ cutting sport and 47 controls (mean age, 17.2 ± 2.6 years) who also participated in pivoting/cutting sports were prospectively enrolled. Each participant was followed for injury and athlete exposure (AE) data for a 24-month period after RTS. Twenty-three ACLR and 4 control participants suffered an ACL injury during this time. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to compare the rates (per 1000 AEs) of ACL injury in athletes in the ACLR and control groups. For the ACLR group, similar comparisons were conducted for side of injury by sex. Results The overall incidence rate of a second ACL injury within 24 months after ACLR and RTS (1.39/1000 AEs) was nearly 6 times greater (IRR, 5.71; 95% CI, 2.0–22.7; P = .0003) than that in healthy control participants (0.24/1000 AEs). The rate of injury within 24 months of RTS for female athletes in the ACLR group was almost 5 times greater (IRR, 4.51; 95% CI, 1.5–18.2; P = .0004) than that for female controls. Although only a trend was observed, female patients within the ACLR group were twice as likely (IRR, 2.43; 95% CI, 0.8–8.6) to suffer a contralateral injury (1.13/1000 AEs) than an ipsilateral injury (0.47/1000 AEs). Overall, 29.5% of athletes suffered a second ACL injury within 24 months of RTS, with 20.5% sustaining a contralateral injury and 9.0% incurring a retear injury of the ipsilateral graft. There was a trend toward a higher proportion of female participants (23.7%) who suffered a contralateral injury compared with male participants (10.5%) (P = .18). Conversely, for ipsilateral injuries, the incidence proportion between female (8.5%) and male (10.5%) participants was similar. Conclusion These data support the hypothesis that in the 24 months after ACLR and RTS, patients are at a greater risk to suffer a subsequent ACL injury compared with young athletes without a history of ACL injuries. In addition, the contralateral limb of female patients appears at greatest risk.

show abstract

Allograft Versus Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Cited by 435 publications

References 38 publications

Autograft Versus Nonirradiated Allograft Tissue for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Autograft Versus Nonirradiated Allograft Tissue for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Are Articular Cartilage Lesions and Meniscus Tears Predictive of IKDC, KOOS, and Marx Activity Level Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?

Incidence of Second ACL Injuries 2 Years After Primary ACL Reconstruction and Return to Sport

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About