TY - JOUR
T1 - Autograft Demonstrates Superior Outcomes for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction When Compared With Allograft
T2 - A Systematic Review
AU - Belk, John W.
AU - Littlefield, Connor P.
AU - Smith, John Rudolph H.
AU - McCulloch, Patrick C.
AU - McCarty, Eric C.
AU - Frank, Rachel M.
AU - Kraeutler, Matthew J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s).
PY - 2024/3
Y1 - 2024/3
N2 - BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have compared outcomes among patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with autograft versus allograft, but these data are inconsistently reported and long-term outcomes depending on graft type are yet to be determined.PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes after revision ACLR (rACLR) with autograft versus allograft.STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that compared the outcomes of patients undergoing rACLR with autograft versus allograft. The search phrase used was
autograft allograft revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Graft rerupture rates, return-to-sports rates, anteroposterior laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores (subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Lysholm, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, including 3011 patients undergoing rACLR with autograft (mean age, 28.9 years) and 1238 patients undergoing rACLR with allograft (mean age, 28.0 years). Mean follow-up was 57.3 months. The most common autograft and allograft types were bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. Overall, 6.2% of patients undergoing rACLR experienced graft retear, including 4.7% in the autograft group and 10.2% in the allograft group (
P < .0001). Among studies that reported return-to-sports rates, 66.2% of patients with an autograft returned to sports as opposed to 45.3% of patients with an allograft (
P = .01). Two studies found significantly greater postoperative knee laxity in the allograft group as compared with the autograft group (
P < .05). Among all patient-reported outcomes, 1 study found 1 significant difference between groups: patients with an autograft had a significantly higher postoperative Lysholm score when compared with patients with an allograft.
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing revision ACLR with an autograft can be expected to experience lower rates of graft retear, higher rates of return to sports, and less postoperative anteroposterior knee laxity when compared with patients undergoing revision ACLR with an allograft.
AB - BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have compared outcomes among patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with autograft versus allograft, but these data are inconsistently reported and long-term outcomes depending on graft type are yet to be determined.PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes after revision ACLR (rACLR) with autograft versus allograft.STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that compared the outcomes of patients undergoing rACLR with autograft versus allograft. The search phrase used was
autograft allograft revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Graft rerupture rates, return-to-sports rates, anteroposterior laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores (subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Lysholm, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, including 3011 patients undergoing rACLR with autograft (mean age, 28.9 years) and 1238 patients undergoing rACLR with allograft (mean age, 28.0 years). Mean follow-up was 57.3 months. The most common autograft and allograft types were bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. Overall, 6.2% of patients undergoing rACLR experienced graft retear, including 4.7% in the autograft group and 10.2% in the allograft group (
P < .0001). Among studies that reported return-to-sports rates, 66.2% of patients with an autograft returned to sports as opposed to 45.3% of patients with an allograft (
P = .01). Two studies found significantly greater postoperative knee laxity in the allograft group as compared with the autograft group (
P < .05). Among all patient-reported outcomes, 1 study found 1 significant difference between groups: patients with an autograft had a significantly higher postoperative Lysholm score when compared with patients with an allograft.
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing revision ACLR with an autograft can be expected to experience lower rates of graft retear, higher rates of return to sports, and less postoperative anteroposterior knee laxity when compared with patients undergoing revision ACLR with an allograft.
KW - allograft
KW - anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
KW - autograft
KW - revision
KW - Autografts
KW - Allografts
KW - Humans
KW - Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
KW - Adult
KW - Transplantation, Autologous
KW - Transplantation, Homologous
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85150174353&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85150174353&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/03635465231152232
DO - 10.1177/03635465231152232
M3 - Article
C2 - 36867049
AN - SCOPUS:85150174353
SN - 0363-5465
VL - 52
SP - 859
EP - 867
JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 3
ER -