» Articles » PMID: 26311445

Autograft Versus Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study With a Minimum 10-Year Follow-up

Overview
Journal Am J Sports Med
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2015 Aug 28
PMID 26311445
Citations 76
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The use of allografts for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in young athletes is controversial. No long-term results have been published comparing tibialis posterior allografts to hamstring autografts.

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term results of primary ACL reconstruction using either an allograft or autograft.

Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods: From June 2002 to August 2003, patients with a symptomatic ACL-deficient knee were randomized to receive either a hamstring autograft or tibialis posterior allograft. All allografts were from a single tissue bank, aseptically processed, and fresh-frozen without terminal irradiation. Graft fixation was identical in all knees. All patients followed the same postoperative rehabilitation protocol, which was blinded to the therapists. Preoperative and postoperative assessments were performed via examination and/or telephone and Internet-based questionnaire to ascertain the functional and subjective status using established knee metrics. The primary outcome measures were graft integrity, subjective knee stability, and functional status.

Results: There were 99 patients (100 knees); 86 were men, and 95% were active-duty military. Both groups were similar in demographics and preoperative activity level. The mean and median ages of both groups were identical at 29 and 26 years, respectively. Concomitant meniscal and chondral pathologic abnormalities, microfracture, and meniscal repair performed at the time of reconstruction were similar in both groups. At a minimum of 10 years (range, 120-132 months) from surgery, 96 patients (97 knees) were contacted (2 patients were deceased, and 1 was unable to be located). There were 4 (8.3%) autograft and 13 (26.5%) allograft failures that required revision reconstruction. In the remaining patients whose graft was intact, there was no difference in the mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Tegner, or International Knee Documentation Committee scores.

Conclusion: At a minimum of 10 years after ACL reconstruction in a young athletic population, over 80% of all grafts were intact and had maintained stability. However, those patients who had an allograft failed at a rate over 3 times higher than those with an autograft.

Citing Articles

Thai version of ACL return to sports after injury scale translated with cross-cultural adaptation provided the good validation in Thai patients who received ACL reconstruction.

Laddawong T, Vijittrakarnrung C, Woratanarat P, Saengpetch N SICOT J. 2025; 11:15.

PMID: 40079609 PMC: 11905766. DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2025009.


Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Quadriceps Tendon-Patellar Bone Allograft.

Lee D, Lee S, Ro D, Han H Clin Orthop Surg. 2025; 17(1):91-99.

PMID: 39912082 PMC: 11791487. DOI: 10.4055/cios23409.


Comparison of Dynamic Postural Stability in Autografts Versus Allografts Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Remnant Preservation: A Prospective Study With 1-Year Follow-up.

Rhim H, Lee J, Lee S, Kang C, Han S, Jang K Orthop J Sports Med. 2025; 13(1):23259671241303752.

PMID: 39839982 PMC: 11748150. DOI: 10.1177/23259671241303752.


Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Internal Brace Augmentation Results in Fewer Reruptures Compared to Reconstruction without Augmentation.

Novaretti J, Dias Junior C, Lima L, Amaro J, Gomes D, Cohen M Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2024; 59(6):e868-e875.

PMID: 39711619 PMC: 11663066. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1785663.


New Graft Choices for ACL Reconstruction: Update Article.

Lara P, Novaretti J, Nunes G, Cohen M, Ramos L Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2024; 59(5):e642-e649.

PMID: 39649040 PMC: 11624934. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1779335.