Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With at Least 2.5 Years' Follow-up Comparing Hamstring Tendon Autograft and Irradiated Allograft

Department of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University Medical College, Qingdao, China.
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.1). 07/2011; 27(9):1195-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.03.083
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft versus irradiated allograft.
All irradiated hamstring tendon allografts (gracilis and semitendinosus), which were sterilized with 2.5 Mrad of irradiation before distribution, were obtained from a single certified tissue bank. A total of 78 patients undergoing arthroscopic ACL reconstruction were prospectively randomized consecutively into 1 of 2 groups: autograft and irradiated allograft. The same surgical technique was used in all operations, which were performed by the same senior surgeon. Before surgery and at a mean of 42.2 months of follow-up, patients were evaluated by the same observer according to objective and subjective clinical evaluations.
Of the patients, 67 (36 in autograft group and 31 in irradiated allograft group) were available for full evaluation. When the irradiated allograft group was compared with the autograft group at the final follow-up by the Lachman test, anterior drawer test, pivot-shift test, and KT-2000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) assessment, statistically significant differences were found (P = .00011, P = .00016, P = .008, and P = .00021, respectively). Most importantly, 86.1% of patients in the autograft group and only 32.3% in the irradiated allograft group had a side-to-side difference of less than 3 mm according to KT-2000 assessment. The rate of laxity (side-to-side difference >5 mm) with irradiated allograft (32.3%) was higher than that with autograft (8.3%). The anterior and rotational stabilities decreased significantly in the irradiated allograft group. According to the overall International Knee Documentation Committee rating, functional and subjective evaluations, and activity level testing, no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups. However, patients in the irradiated allograft group had a shorter operative time and a longer duration of postoperative fever. When the patients had a fever, the laboratory examination findings of all patients were almost normal (white blood cell count, normal; erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 8 to 20 mm/h; and C-reactive protein level, 4 to 11 mg/L).
The clinical outcome of ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft was satisfactory, whereas the difference in instrumented laxity between the 2 groups was significant and the difference in functional test results was not significant.
Level II, prospective comparative study.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evaluate allograft tissue commonly used in soft tissue reconstruction to determine whether stiffness and strength were significantly altered after grafts were treated with different sterilization methods. Unprocessed, irradiated, and grafts treated with supercritical CO2 were compared.
    Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 08/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00167-014-3221-0 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose To compare clinical outcomes and revision rates for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions using bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) allografts versus BPTB autografts in a population of patients aged 25 years and younger. Methods A consecutive series of patients 25 years or younger undergoing ACL reconstruction with either a patient-selected BPTB allograft or BPTB autograft fixed with biocomposite interference screws was retrospectively reviewed. Multiligamentous and posterior cruciate ligament tears were excluded. All allografts were from a single source and not chemically processed or irradiated. Two graft-specific rehabilitation programs were used. The primary outcome measure was graft failure. Failure was defined as a subsequent ACL revision surgery, 2+ Lachman test, positive pivot-shift, or side-to-side KT difference of greater than 5 mm. Secondary outcome measures included Cincinnati, Lysholm, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) activity scores. Results In 81 patients at least 24 months after surgery (28 allografts; 53 autografts), 7 failures were identified: 2 of 28 (7.1%) allografts and 5 of 53 (9.4%) autografts. Mean Cincinnati scores improved from 54.6 and 39.5 (allografts and autografts, respectively) to 86.2 and 85.1. Mean Lysholm scores improved from 60.3 and 44.8 (allografts and autografts, respectively) to 89.9 and 87.0. Average KT differences were 0.59 mm (allograft) and 0.34 mm (autograft group) (P = .58). IKDC activity scores were 2.9 (allografts) and 3.1 (autografts) postoperatively (P = .32). Conclusions Using a patient-choice ACL graft selection program after appropriate counseling and using graft-specific rehabilitation programs, not chemically processed or irradiated BPTB allograft reconstructions have no greater failure rate than autografts in patients aged 25 years and younger at a minimum 2-year follow-up. No significant differences in Cincinnati, Lysholm, and IKDC activity scores were found between these 2 groups. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.
    Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 04/2014; 30(4):483–491. DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2013.12.022 · 3.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose To compare outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstring autograft versus soft-tissue allograft by systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review of randomized controlled studies comparing hamstring autograft with soft-tissue allograft in ACL reconstruction was performed. Studies were identified by strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics were reported. Where possible, the data were pooled and a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dichotomous data were reported as risk ratios, whereas continuous data were reported as standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed by use of I2 for each meta-analysis. Study methodologic quality was analyzed with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score and Jadad scale. Results Five studies with 504 combined patients (251 autograft and 253 allograft; 374 male and 130 female patients) with a mean age of 29.9 ± 2.2 years were included. The allografts used were fresh-frozen hamstring, irradiated hamstring, mixture of fresh-frozen and cryopreserved hamstring, fresh-frozen tibialis anterior, and fresh-frozen Achilles tendon grafts without bone blocks. The mean follow-up period was 47.4 ± 26.9 months, with a mean follow-up rate of 83.3% ± 8.6%. Two studies found a longer operative time with autograft than with allograft (77.1 ± 2.0 minutes v 59.9 ± 0.9 minutes, P = .008). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between autografts and allografts for any outcome measures (P > .05 for all tests). One study found significantly greater laxity for irradiated allograft than for autograft. The methodologic quality of the 5 studies was poor, with a mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score of 54.4 ± 6.9 and mean Jadad score of 1.6 ± 1.5. Conclusions On the basis of this systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials, there is no statistically significant difference in outcome between patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft and those undergoing ACL reconstruction with soft-tissue allograft. These results may not extrapolate to younger patient populations. The methodology of the available randomized controlled trials comparing hamstring autograft and soft-tissue allograft is poor. Level of Evidence Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
    Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 12/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.05.040 · 3.10 Impact Factor