Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume 25, Issue 7 , Pages 750-759, July 2009

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Autograft Versus Allograft

  • Kang Sun, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Kang Sun, M.D., Ph.D., or Shao-qi Tian, M.Med., Department of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Qingdao, Shandong 266003, China
  • ,
  • Shao-qi Tian, M.Med.

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Kang Sun, M.D., Ph.D., or Shao-qi Tian, M.Med., Department of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Qingdao University, No. 16 Jiangsu Rd, Qingdao, Shandong 266003, China
  • ,
  • Ji-hua Zhang, B.M.
  • ,
  • Chang-suo Xia, M.D.
  • ,
  • Cai-long Zhang, B.M.
  • ,
  • Teng-bo Yu, M.D.

Department of Orthopaedics, Healthy Physical Examination Center, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China

Received 22 August 2008; accepted 25 December 2008. published online 20 April 2009.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical outcome of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft versus allograft.

Methods

Between May 2000 and June 2004, 172 patients undergoing arthroscopic bone–patellar tendon–bone ACL reconstruction were prospectively randomized into autograft (n = 86) or allograft (n = 86) groups. The senior surgeon performed all operations using the same surgical technique. Each fixation was performed by means of an interference screw. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at follow-up. Of the patients, 156 (76 in the autograft group and 80 in the allograft group) were available for full evaluation. Evaluations included a detailed history, physical examination, functional knee ligament testing, KT-2000 arthrometer testing (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA), Harner's vertical jump and Daniel's 1-leg hop tests, Lysholm score, Tegner score, International Knee Documentation Committee standard evaluation form, Cincinnati knee score, and radiograph.

Results

Demographic data were comparable between groups. The mean follow-up was 5.6 years for both groups. There were no statistically significant differences according to evaluations of outcome between the 2 groups except that patients in the allograft group had a shorter operation time and longer fever time postoperatively compared with the autograft group. The postoperative infection rates were 0% and 1.25% for the autograft group and allograft group, respectively. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in the development of osteoarthritis between the operated knee in comparison to the contralateral knee according to radiographs. However, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups at the final follow-up examination (P > .05).

Conclusions

Both groups of patients achieved almost the same satisfactory outcomes after a mean of 5.6 years of follow-up. Allograft is a reasonable alternative to autograft for ACL reconstruction.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prospective comparative study.

Key Words: ACL reconstruction, Patellar tendon, Autograft, Allograft, Clinical outcome

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported by Natural Science Foundation of China Grant No. 2004GG2202034. The authors report no conflict of interest.

PII: S0749-8063(09)00039-5

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2008.12.023

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume 25, Issue 7 , Pages 750-759, July 2009