Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1 (5-Year IF – 2.0)
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) (2023) – 0.4
Scopus CiteScore – 3.7 (CiteScore Tracker 3.8)
Index Copernicus  – 171.00; MNiSW – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2020, vol. 29, nr 9, September, p. 1029–1037

doi: 10.17219/acem/124883

Publication type: original article

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Clinical and functional evaluation of primary anterior crucial ligament reconstruction by using allograft

Sebastian Krupa1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Paweł Reichert2,A,C,E,F

1 Trauma and Orthopedics Department, eMKaMED Medical Center, Wrocław, Poland

2 Department of Sports Medicine, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Abstract

Background. The reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) of the knee joint is the gold standard in complete ACL rupture treatment. One of the central discussion topics is choice of graft.
Objectives. To assess the outcome of treatment after primary ACL reconstruction using allograft.
Material and Methods. The study was a retrospective cohort study. Out of 372 male patients who had undergone primary unilateral intra-articular ACL reconstruction using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, 61 patients who qualified for the study took part. Group I was made up of 31 patients with allograft, while Group II consisted of 30 patients involved with autograft. The Lachman test, Pivot–Shift test, Lysholm Knee Scoring scale, and 2000 International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) were used to evaluate the results. Follow-up time was 18 months.
Results. The knee joint regained anterior stability in subjective and objective assessments in all the patients in both groups. The subjective results were the following: in Group I, 96.6 ±3.08 points on the Lysholm scale and 94.79 ±6.53 points on the IKDC 2000 scale, while in Group II, 98.00 ±1.9 points on the Lysholm scale and 94.81 ±5.6 points on the IKDC 2000 scale. The group comparison of the results of the IKDC 2000 and Lysholm Scale obtained postoperatively showed no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups.
Conclusion. Primary ACL reconstruction using an allograft is an effective procedure to counteract instability of the anterior knee joint. Comparative analysis of the results of primary ACL reconstruction in the treatment of anterior knee instability using autograft or allograft gives grounds for the possibility of individual selection of graft depending on what the patient’s expectations are.

Key words

anterior cruciate ligament, allograft, autograft, ACL reconstruction, knee arthroscopy

References (38)

  1. Ekstrand J. A 94% return to elite level football after ACL surgery: A proof of possibilities with optimal caretaking or a sign of knee abuse? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(1):1–2. doi:10.1007/s00167-010-1300-4
  2. Czamara A, Królikowska A, Szuba Ł, Widuchowski W, Kentel M. Single- vs double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A new aspect of knee assessment during activities involving dynamic knee rotation. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(2):489–499. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000638
  3. Królikowska A, Sikorski Ł, Czamara A, Reichert P. Effects of postoperative physiotherapy supervision duration on clinical outcome, speed, and agility in males 8 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:6823–6831. doi:10.12659/MSM.912162
  4. Cohen SB, Sekiya JK. Allograft safety in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med. 2007;26(4):597–605.
  5. West RV, Harner CD. Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13(3):197–207.
  6. Zeng C, Gao SG, Li H, et al. Autograft versus allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic review of overlapping systematic reviews. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(1):153–163.e18. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.027
  7. Samuelsson K, Andersson D, Ahldén M, Fu FH, Musahl V, Karlsson J. Trends in surgeon preferences on anterior cruciate ligament reconstructive techniques. Clin Sports Med. 2013;32(1):111–126. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2012.08.011
  8. Czamara A, Markowska I, Królikowska A, Szopa A, Domagalska-Szopa M. Kinematics of rotation in joints of the lower limbs and pelvis during gait: Early results-SB ACLR approach versus DB ACLR approach. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:707168. doi:10.1155/2015/707168
  9. Królikowska A, Czamara A, Kentel M. Does gracilis tendon harvest during ACL reconstruction with a hamstring autograft affect torque of muscles responsible for shin rotation? Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:2084–2093. doi:10.12659/MSM.893930
  10. Królikowska A, Czamara A, Szuba Ł, Reichert P. The effect of longer versus shorter duration of supervised physiotherapy after ACL reconstruction on the vertical jump landing limb symmetry. Biomed Res Int. 2018;4:7519467
  11. Magarian EM, Fleming BC, Harrison SL, Mastrangelo AN, Badger GJ, Murray MM. Delay of 2 or 6 weeks adversely affects the functional outcome of augmented primary repair of the porcine anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(12):2528–2534. doi:10.1177/0363546510377416
  12. Griffin LY, Albohm MJ, Arendt EA, et al. Understanding and preventing noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: A review of the Hunt Valley II meeting, January 2005. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(9):1512–1532.
  13. Brophy RH, Wright RW, Matava MJ. Cost analysis of converting from single-bundle to double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(4):683–687. doi:10.1177/0363546508328121
  14. Bieri KS, Scholz SM, Kohl S, Aghayev E, Staub LP. Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization versus conventional ACL reconstruction: A matched study on return to work. Injury. 2017;48(6):1243–1248. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.03.004
  15. Larsson S, Struglics A, Lohmander LS, Frobell R. Surgical reconstruction of ruptured anterior cruciate ligament prolongs trauma-induced increase of inflammatory cytokines in synovial fluid: An exploratory analysis in the KANON trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017;25(9):1443–1451. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2017.05.009
  16. Brown MJ, Carter T. ACL Allograft: Advantages and when to use. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2018;26(2):75–78. doi:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000194
  17. Chen H, Chen B, Tie K, Fu Z, Chen L. Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):50. doi:10.1186/s13018-018-0753-x
  18. Speziali A, Delcogliano M, Tei M, et al. Fixation techniques for the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Early follow-up: A systematic review of level I and II therapeutic studies. Musculoskelet Surg. 2014;98(3):179–187. doi:10.1007/s12306-014-0338-8
  19. Debieux P, Franciozi CE, Lenza M, et al. Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7:CD009772. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009772.pub2
  20. Jiang H, Ma G, Li Q, Hu Y, Li J, Tang X. Cortical button versus cross-pin femoral fixation for hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(9):2277–2284. doi:10.1177/0363546517717672
  21. Sarzaeem MM, Najafi F, Razi M, Najafi MA. ACL reconstruction using bone-patella tendon-bone autograft: Press-fit technique vs interference screw fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(7):955–962. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-1999-3
  22. Królikowska A, Sikorski Ł, Czamara A, Reichert P. Are the knee extensor and flexor muscles isokinetic parameters affected by the duration of postoperative physiotherapy supervision in patients eight months after ACL reconstruction with the use of semitendinosus and gracilis tendons autograft? Acta Bioengi Biomech. 2018;20(3):89–100.
  23. Anderson MJ, Browning WM III, Urband CE, Kluczynski MA, Bisson LJ. A systematic summary of systematic reviews on the topic of the anterior cruciate ligament. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(3):2325967116634074. doi:10.1177/2325967116634074
  24. Cohen SB, Yucha DT, Ciccotti MC, Goldstein DT, Ciccotti MA, Ciccotti MG. Factors affecting patient selection of graft type in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(9):1006–1010. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.02.010
  25. Giedraitis A, Arnoczky SP, Bedi A. Allografts in soft tissue reconstructive procedures: Important considerations. Sports Health. 2014;6(3):256–264. doi:10.1177/1941738113503442
  26. de Girolamo L, Ragni E, Cucchiarini M, van Bergen CJA, Hunziker EB, Chubinskaya S. Cells, soluble factors and matrix harmonically play the concert of allograft integration. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(6):1717–1725. doi:10.1007/s00167-018-5182-1
  27. Palmer JE, Russell JP, Grieshober J, et al. A biomechanical comparison of allograft tendons for ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(3):701–707. doi:10.1177/0363546516671944
  28. Kaeding CC, 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(1):73–81.
  29. Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Reinke EK, et al. Change in anterior cruciate ligament graft choice and outcomes over time. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(11):2007–2014. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.06.019
  30. Robin BN, Jani SS, Marvil SC, Reid JB, Schillhammer CK, Lubowitz JH. Advantages and disadvantages of transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in femoral tunnel drilling in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(7):1412–1417. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.01.018
  31. Rezazadeh S, Ettehadi H, Vosoughi AR. Outcome of arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Anteromedial portal technique versus transtibial drilling technique. Musculoskelet Surg. 2016;100(1):37–41. doi:10.1007/s12306-015-0392-x
  32. Musahl V. A modified transtibial technique was similar to an anteromedial portal technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(16):1373. doi:10.2106/JBJS.9716.ebo102
  33. Chen H, Tie K, Qi Y, Li B, Chen B, Chen L. Anteromedial versus transtibial technique in single-bundle autologous hamstring ACL reconstruction: A meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12(1):167. doi:10.1186/s13018-017-0671-3
  34. Kim YK, Ahn JH, Yoo JD. A comparative study of clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic findings between remnant-preserving tibialis tendon allograft and hamstring tendon autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Matched-pair design. Clin Orthop Surg. 2017;9(4):424–431. doi:10.4055/cios.2017.9.4.424
  35. Ericsson D, Östenberg AH, Andersson E, Alricsson M. Test-retest reliability of repeated knee laxity measurements in the acute phase following a knee trauma using a Rolimeter. J Exerc Rehabil. 2017;13(5):550–558. doi:10.12965/jer.1735104.552
  36. Balasch H, Schiller M, Friebel H, Hoffmann F. Evaluation of anterior knee joint instability with the Rolimeter: A test in comparison with manual assessment and measuring with the KT-1000 arthrometer. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7(4):204–208.
  37. Bottoni CR, Smith EL, Shaha J, et al. Autograft versus allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective, randomized clinical study with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(10):2501–2509. doi:10.1177/0363546515596406
  38. Jia Y, Sun P. Comparison of clinical outcome of autograft and allograft reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament tears. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015;128(23):3163–3166. doi:10.4103/0366-6999.170265
© Wroclaw Medical University