These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft: comparison of autograft, fresh-frozen allograft, and γ-irradiated allograft.
    Author: Guo L, Yang L, Duan XJ, He R, Chen GX, Wang FY, Zhang Y.
    Journal: Arthroscopy; 2012 Feb; 28(2):211-7. PubMed ID: 22244101.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare clinical follow-up results of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using (1) autologous, (2) fresh-frozen allogeneic, and (3) γ-irradiated allogeneic bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB). METHODS: From February 2002 to January 2006, 187 patients received BPTB ACL reconstruction at our center. One hundred forty-two consecutive patients who had received single-bundle BPTB ACL reconstruction were included in this study. Of these patients, 41 had autografts, 33 had fresh-frozen allografts, and 68 had γ-irradiated allografts. Clinical results were evaluated with the KT-1000 maximum displacement test (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA), Lachman test, and Lysholm, Irrgang, and Larson activity scales. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 6.7 ± 1.5 years (range, 4.2 to 8.2 years). There were 3 cases of acute synovitis due to immunologic rejection (fresh-frozen allografts) and 6 cases of failure (γ-irradiated allografts). KT-1000 examination showed more anterior laxity in the γ-irradiated allograft group compared with the autograft and fresh-frozen allograft groups (P < .05). The Lysholm, Irrgang, and Larson activity scales showed no difference among the 3 groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed a statistically poorer KT-1000 result and higher failure rate in the γ-irradiated allograft group compared with the autograft and fresh-frozen allograft groups. This may suggest that γ-irradiated allograft is not a good candidate graft for ACL reconstruction. Power analysis showed that the study was underpowered, so further research and longer follow-up study are needed to make this point clearer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]