Graft choice has no significant influence on the rate of return to sport at the preinjury level after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Allograft tendons are a safe and effective option for revision ACL reconstruction: a clinical review

“…It is worthy of attention that recent studies [48, 50, 69] on revision ACL reconstruction have shown comparable results, in terms of subjective outcomes and return to sport, using either autograft or allograft, thus confirming that current sterilization and storage techniques are able to preserve the biomechanical properties of allograft tissue. Furthermore, we currently lack evidence concerning the “best” allograft to use for revision ACL: and no significant difference has emerged [35], suggesting that the choice of the graft is based on the surgeons’ preference and experience. Based on the available evidence, there is no clear indication on the “ideal” patient that should be treated by allograft reconstruction, both amateurs and professional athletes have been treated by allografts, achieving satisfactory outcomes.…”

“…In a meta‐analysis of return to sport after revision ACL reconstruction, six studies (162 patients in total) were included [35]. The average age was 27.1 years (range 16–42), the average follow‐up was 41.1 months, and 68% were male.…”

“…The average age was 27.1 years (range 16–42), the average follow‐up was 41.1 months, and 68% were male. The combined rate of return to sport, independently from the level, was 84% (76–91%), whereas in 64% (56–74%) of cases the same pre‐injury level was achieved independently from the type of graft [35].…”

Surgical Technique: What We Would Do in Different Situations—Graft Choice, One or Two Steps, Fixation, Associated Lesions

“…In terms of revision surgery using BPTB, good results have also been reported in the literatures [35,36]. Keizer et al [37] reported that there was a significant difference in rate of return to sports (RTS) type in favor of using an ipsilateral BPTB autograft over a patellar tendon allograft (43.3% versus 75.0%, respectively) in patients undergoing revision ACLR after a minimum follow-up of 2 years.…”

“…Otherwise, Condello et al [48] reported that the use of allografts for ACL revision can be regarded as a safe and effective approach: data from several studies have shown that the infection and overall complication rate, is similar with respect to primary procedures with autografts [49], and also clinical outcomes are satisfactory in terms of durable knee stability after revision and RTS [5,7]. Additionally, Kay et al [35] reported that there was no significant influence of graft choice on the rate of RTS after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction identified between BPTB autografts (67%), HT autografts (55%), and allografts (64%).…”