Advertisement

Revision Rates After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Allograft or Autograft in a Population 25 Years Old and Younger

      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.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Granan L.P.
        • Forssblad M.
        • Lind M.
        • Engebretsen L.
        The Scandinavian ACL registries 2004-2007: Baseline epidemiology.
        Acta Orthop. 2009; 80: 563-567
        • Ellis H.B.
        • Matheny L.M.
        • Briggs K.K.
        • Pennock A.T.
        • Steadman J.R.
        Outcomes and revision rate after bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients aged 18 years or younger with closed physes.
        Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 1819-1825
        • Aichroth P.M.
        • Patel D.V.
        • Zorrilla P.
        The natural history and treatment of rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament in children and adolescents. A prospective review.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002; 84: 38-41
        • Keays S.L.
        • Newcombe P.A.
        • Bullock-Saxton J.E.
        • Bullock M.I.
        • Keays A.C.
        Factors involved in the development of osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament surgery.
        Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 455-463
        • Vyas D.
        • Rabuck S.J.
        • Harner C.D.
        Allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Indications, techniques, and outcomes.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012; 42: 196-207
        • Kustos T.
        • Balint L.
        • Than P.
        • Bardos T.
        Comparative study of autograft or allograft in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
        Int Orthop. 2004; 28: 290-293
        • Carey J.L.
        • Dunn W.R.
        • Dahm D.L.
        • Zeger S.L.
        • Spindler K.P.
        A systematic review of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft compared with allograft.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91: 2242-2250
        • Chang S.K.
        • Egami D.K.
        • Shaieb M.D.
        • Kan D.M.
        • Richardson A.B.
        Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Allograft versus autograft.
        Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 453-462
        • Barrett A.M.
        • Craft J.A.
        • Replogle W.H.
        • Hydrick J.M.
        • Barrett G.R.
        Anterior cruciate ligament graft failure: a comparison of graft type based on age and Tegner activity level.
        Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39: 2194-2198
        • Leal-Blanquet J.
        • Alentorn-Geli E.
        • Tuneu J.
        • Valenti J.R.
        • Maestro A.
        Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A multicenter prospective cohort study evaluating 3 different grafts using same bone drilling method.
        Clin J Sport Med. 2011; 21: 294-300
        • Barrett G.R.
        • Luber K.
        • Replogle W.H.
        • Manley J.L.
        Allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the young, active patient: Tegner activity level and failure rate.
        Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 1593-1601
        • Krych A.J.
        • Jackson J.D.
        • Hoskin T.L.
        • Dahm D.L.
        A meta-analysis of patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
        Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 292-298
        • Gorschewsky O.
        • Klakow A.
        • Riechert K.
        • Pitzl M.
        • Becker R.
        Clinical comparison of the Tutoplast allograft and autologous patellar tendon (bone-patellar tendon-bone) for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: 2- and 6-year results.
        Am J Sports Med. 2005; 33: 1202-1209
        • Sun K.
        • Tian S.
        • Zhang J.
        • et al.
        Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with BPTB autograft, irradiated versus non-irradiated allograft: a prospective randomized clinical study.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009; 17: 464-474
        • Sun K.
        • Zhang J.
        • Wang Y.
        • et al.
        Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with at least 2.5 years' follow-up comparing hamstring tendon autograft and irradiated allograft.
        Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 1195-1202
        • Raffo C.S.
        • Pizzarello P.
        • Richmond J.C.
        • Pathare N.
        A reproducible landmark for the tibial tunnel origin in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Avoiding a vertical graft in the coronal plane.
        Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 843-845
        • Barber F.A.
        Accelerated rehabilitation for meniscus repairs.
        Arthroscopy. 1994; 10: 206-210
        • Barber F.A.
        • Click S.D.
        Meniscus repair rehabilitation with concurrent anterior cruciate reconstruction.
        Arthroscopy. 1997; 13: 433-437
        • Shelbourne K.D.
        • Patel D.V.
        • Adsit W.S.
        • Porter D.A.
        Rehabilitation after meniscal repair.
        Clin Sports Med. 1996; 15: 595-612
        • Mariani P.P.
        • Santori N.
        • Adriani E.
        • Mastantuono M.
        Accelerated rehabilitation after arthroscopic meniscal repair: A clinical and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation.
        Arthroscopy. 1996; 12: 680-686
        • Barber F.A.
        • Dockery W.D.
        • Cowden III, C.H.
        The degradation outcome of biocomposite suture anchors made from poly L-lactide-co-glycolide and beta-tricalcium phosphate.
        Arthroscopy. 2013; 29: 1834-1839
        • Barber F.A.
        • Dockery W.D.
        • Hrnack S.A.
        Long-term degradation of a poly-lactide co-glycolide/beta-tricalcium phosphate biocomposite interference screw.
        Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 637-643
        • Mehta V.M.
        • Mandala C.
        • Foster D.
        • Petsche T.S.
        Comparison of revision rates in bone-patella tendon-bone autograft and allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
        Orthopedics. 2010; 33: 12
        • Borchers J.R.
        • Pedroza A.
        • Kaeding C.
        Activity level and graft type as risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament graft failure: a case-control study.
        Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37: 2362-2367
        • Prodromos C.
        • Joyce B.
        • Shi K.
        A meta-analysis of stability of autografts compared to allografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007; 15: 851-856
        • Edgar C.M.
        • Zimmer S.
        • Kakar S.
        • Jones H.
        • Schepsis A.A.
        Prospective comparison of auto and allograft hamstring tendon constructs for ACL reconstruction.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466: 2238-2246
        • Scheffler S.U.
        • Schmidt T.
        • Gangey I.
        • et al.
        Fresh-frozen free-tendon allografts versus autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Delayed remodeling and inferior mechanical function during long-term healing in sheep.
        Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 448-458
        • Jackson D.W.
        • Grood E.S.
        • Goldstein J.D.
        • et al.
        A comparison of patellar tendon autograft and allograft used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the goat model.
        Am J Sports Med. 1993; 21: 176-185
        • Muramatsu K.
        • Hachiya Y.
        • Izawa H.
        Serial evaluation of human anterior cruciate ligament grafts by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison of allografts and autografts.
        Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 1038-1044
        • DePaula C.A.
        • Truncale K.G.
        • Gertzman A.A.
        • Sunwoo M.H.
        • Dunn M.G.
        Effects of hydrogen peroxide cleaning procedures on bone graft osteoinductivity and mechanical properties.
        Cell Tissue Bank. 2005; 6: 287-298
        • McGuire D.A.
        • Hendricks S.D.
        Allograft tissue in ACL reconstruction.
        Sports Med Arthrosc. 2009; 17: 224-233
        • Guo L.
        • Yang L.
        • Duan X.J.
        • et al.
        Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft: Comparison of autograft, fresh-frozen allograft, and gamma-irradiated allograft.
        Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 211-217
        • Kamien P.M.
        • Hydrick J.M.
        • Replogle W.H.
        • Go L.T.
        • Barrett G.R.
        Age, graft size, and Tegner activity level as predictors of failure in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft.
        Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41: 1808-1812
        • Sun K.
        • Zhang J.
        • Wang Y.
        • et al.
        Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstring tendon autograft and fresh-frozen allograft: A prospective, randomized controlled study.
        Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39: 1430-1438
        • Kraeutler M.J.
        • Bravman J.T.
        • McCarty E.C.
        Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus allograft in outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis of 5182 patients.
        Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41: 2439-2448
        • Hettrich C.M.
        • Dunn W.R.
        • Reinke E.K.
        • Group M.
        • Spindler K.P.
        The rate of subsequent surgery and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Two- and 6-year follow-up results from a multicenter cohort.
        Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41: 1534-1540
        • McCullough K.A.
        • Phelps K.D.
        • Spindler K.P.
        • et al.
        Return to high school- and college-level football after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) cohort study.
        Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40: 2523-2529
        • Kaeding C.C.
        • Aros B.
        • Pedroza A.
        • et al.
        Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort.
        Sports Health. 2011; 3: 73-81
        • Li S.
        • Chen Y.
        • Lin Z.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials comparing hamstring autografts versus bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012; 132: 1287-1297
        • Mohtadi N.G.
        • Chan D.S.
        • Dainty K.N.
        • Whelan D.B.
        Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 9: CD005960