Allografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective

Waugh, Norman; Mistry, Hema; Metcalfe, Andrew; Colquitt, Jill L; Loveman, Emma; Royle, Pamela; Smith, Nick

doi:10.1007/s00167-019-05477-4

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also common for the QF to be weakened following ACL ruptures and reconstructions, and atrophy of the VM and VI often accompanies such weakening (Kuenze, Blemker, & Hart, 2016;Thomas, Wojtys, Brandon, & Palmieri-Smith, 2016;Waligora et al, 2009). QF allografts may be used during reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) (Kang et al, 2019;Slone, Romine, Premkumar, & Xerogeanes, 2015;Waugh et al, 2019), anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) (Chen, Chen, & Shih, 1999;Kwak, Lee, Lee, & Han, 2018;Xerogeanes, 2019), medial palletofemoral ligament (MPFL) (Fink, Steensen, Gföller, & Lawton, 2018;Steensen, Dopirak, & Maurus, 2005), or fibular collateral ligament (FCL) (Kennedy et al, 2019). Alternatively, such reconstructions can also be performed with the hamstring tendon from the pes anserinus .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…QF allografts may be used during reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) (Kang et al, 2019; Slone, Romine, Premkumar, & Xerogeanes, 2015; Waugh et al, 2019), anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) (Chen, Chen, & Shih, 1999; Kwak, Lee, Lee, & Han, 2018; Xerogeanes, 2019), medial palletofemoral ligament (MPFL) (Fink, Steensen, Gföller, & Lawton, 2018; Steensen, Dopirak, & Maurus, 2005), or fibular collateral ligament (FCL) (Kennedy et al, 2019). Alternatively, such reconstructions can also be performed with the hamstring tendon from the pes anserinus (Olewnik, Gonera, Podgórski, et al, 2019; Olewnik, Podgórski, & Polguj, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quadriceps or multiceps femoris?—Cadaveric study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The quadriceps femoris (QF) consists of four muscles: the rectus femoris; vastus medialis; vastus lateralis, and vastus intermediate. The tendons of all of these parts join together into a single tendon that attaches to the patella. The QF is a powerful extensor of the knee joint that is needed for walking. A growing number of publications have examined the fifth head of the QF muscle. There is no information about the possibility of other heads, and there is no correct classification of their proximal attachments. Further, the frequency of occurrence of additional heads/components of the QF remains unclear. Methods: One hundred and six lower limbs (34 male and 18 female) fixed in 10% formalin solution were examined. Results: Additional heads of the QF were present in 64.1% of the limbs. Three main types were identified and included subtypes. The most common was Type I (44.1%), which had an independent fifth head. This type was divided into two subtypes (A-B) depending on its location relative to the vastus intermediate. The second most common type was Type II (30.8%), which originated from other muscles: IIA from the vastus lateralis; IIB from the vastus intermediate, and IIC from the gluteus minimus. In addition, Type III (25%) was characterized by multiple heads: IIIA-two heads with a single common tendon; IIIB-two heads with two separate tendons; IIIC-three heads (lateral, intermediate, medial), and IIID-four heads (bifurcated lateral and bifurcated medial). Conclusion: The introduction of a new classification based on a proximal attachment is necessary. The presence of the fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth head varies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quadriceps or multiceps femoris?—Cadaveric study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several factors have been identiied as contributors to the disparity in the use of MAT. First has been lack of evidence [19]. While there are several studies presenting beneicial results of MAT, no consensus regarding the long-term success in preventing future osteoarthritis has been made [19].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meniscus allograft transplantation for biologic knee preservation: gold standard or dilemma?

Kaarre

Herman

Zsidai

et al. 2022

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The current knowledge in the use of allograft and autograft is that studies verify different outcomes dependent on location. In the cranioplasties, allograft has been shown to be superior [25]; in anterior crucial ligament (ACL), autograft showed better effect on bone formation [26], whereas in the posterior crucial ligament (PCL), the results are equal between the 2 grafts [27,28]. Hence, when comparing results for clinical implementation, using the correct graft is essential for the correct comparisons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons of Efficacy between Autograft and Allograft on Defect Repair In Vivo in Normal and Osteoporotic Rats

Dreyer

Rasmussen

Pedersen

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. In the field of orthopaedic surgery, the use of osteogenic material in larger defects is essential. Autograft and allograft are both known methods, and autograft is believed to be the best choice. But autograft is associated with additional invasive procedures which can prove difficult in fragile patients and can cause local side effect after bone harvest. For feasible purposes, the use of allograft is hereby rising and comparing efficacies, and the differences between autograft and allograft are essential for the clinical outcome for the patients. Method. 24 female Norwegian brown rats were included, 12 normal rats and 12 induced with osteoporosis (OP). OP inducement was verified in vivo by bone volume fraction (BV/TV) at 90 days after ovariectomy (OVX). The primary surgery in each rat consisted of a 2.5×3 mm hole in the proximal tibia, bilaterally. Autograft and allograft were randomly allocated in the right and left tibia. After an observation of 21 days, the rats were sacrificed. Tibia samples were harvested, micro-CT scanned for bone inducement and microarchitectural properties, and then embedded for histology. Results. The OP induction was verified three months after the OVX by a reduction of 68.5% in the trabecular bone BV/TV compared to normal bone. Microarchitectural analysis and histology showed no significant differences in the bone-forming capabilities between autograft and allograft in normal or osteoporotic bone after 3 weeks. Conclusion. This study did not demonstrate any difference between autograft and allograft in a normal or osteoporotic rat tibial defect model after 21 days, suggesting allograft is a good alternative to autograft.

show abstract

Allografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective

Cited by 6 publications

References 20 publications

Quadriceps or multiceps femoris?—Cadaveric study

Quadriceps or multiceps femoris?—Cadaveric study

Meniscus allograft transplantation for biologic knee preservation: gold standard or dilemma?

Comparisons of Efficacy between Autograft and Allograft on Defect Repair In Vivo in Normal and Osteoporotic Rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About