A Systematic Review of Failed Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Autograft Compared With Allograft in Young Patients. (May 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wasserstein, David; Sheth, Ujash; Cabrera, Alison; Spindler, Kurt P.
• Is Part Of: Sports health. Volume 7:Number 3(2015:May/Jun.)
• Page Start: 207
• Page End: 216
• Publication Date: 2015-05
• Subjects: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction -- allograft -- autograft -- young age -- revision; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Athletic Injuries -- Periodicals; Physical Education and Training -- Periodicals; Musculoskeletal Physiological Phenomena -- Periodicals; Médecine du sport -- Périodiques; 617.1027
• DOI: 10.1177/1941738115579030
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1941-7381

Abstract

Context: The advantages of allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), which include shorter surgical time, less postoperative pain, and no donor site morbidity, may be offset by a higher risk of failure. Previous systematic reviews have inconsistently shown a difference in failure prevalence by graft type; however, such reviews have never been stratified for younger or more active patients. Objective: To determine whether there is a different ACLR failure prevalence of autograft compared with allograft in young, active patients. Data Sources: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane trials registry. Study Selection: Comparative studies of allograft versus autograft primary ACL reconstruction in patients <25 years of age or of high-activity level (military, Marx activity score >12 points, collegiate or semiprofessional athletes). Study Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Data Extraction: Manual extraction of available data from eligible studies. Quantitative synthesis of failure prevalence and Lysholm score (outcomes in ≥3 studies) and I 2 test for heterogeneity. Assessment of study quality using CLEAR NPT and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria (1 level 1; 2 level 2, 4 level 3), including 788 patients treated with autograft tissue and 228 with various allografts. The mean age across studies was 21.7 years (64% male), and follow-up ranged between 24 and 51 months. The pooled failure prevalence was 9.6% (76/788) for autografts and 25.0% (57/228) for allografts (relative risk, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.53; P < 0.00001; I 2 = 16%). The number needed to benefit to prevent 1 failure by using autograft was 7 patients (95% CI, 5-10). No difference between hamstrings autograft and patella tendon autograft was noted. Lysholm score was reported in 3 studies and did not differ between autograft and allograft. Conclusion: While systematic reviews comparing allograft and autograft ACLR have been equivocal, this is the first review to examine young and active patients in whom allograft performs poorly.