Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University Medical College, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jul;39(7):1430-8. doi: 10.1177/0363546511400384. Epub 2011 Mar 25.
Most studies of allograft versus autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction have been of bone-patellar tendon-bone; outcome reports evaluating anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft versus allograft are rare.
This study was undertaken to compare the clinical outcome of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft versus allograft.
Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.
Between 2000 and 2004, 208 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study were prospectively randomized into autograft (n = 104) or allograft (n = 104) groups. All hamstring tendon allografts were fresh-frozen and obtained from a single certified tissue bank. All the operations were done by the same surgeon with the same surgical technique. Femoral and tibial fixation was by means of an EndoButton and a bioabsorbable interference screw augmented with a staple, respectively. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively. Evaluations included detailed history, physical examination, functional knee ligament testing, KT-2000 arthrometer testing, Harner vertical jump and Daniel 1-legged hop tests, Lysholm score, Tegner score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) standard evaluation form, Cincinnati knee score, and radiographs.
Of these patients, 186 (autograft, n = 91; allograft, n = 95) were available for full evaluation. Demographic data were comparable between groups. The mean follow-up was 7.8 years for both groups. There were no statistically significant differences according to the evaluations of the outcome aforementioned between the 2 groups except that patients in the allograft group had a shorter operation time than the autograft group. Seven patients (7.7%) in the autograft group and 8 (8.4%) in the allograft group had a side-to-side difference >5 mm. Eighty-five patients (93.4%) in the autograft group and 86 (90.5%) in the allograft group were normal or nearly normal according to the overall IKDC. According to the subjective IKDC, the average scores were 89 and 90 points, respectively, for the autograft and allograft groups. The mean Lysholm and Tegner scores were 89 points and 7.7 points, respectively, for the autograft group and 90 points and 7.6 points, respectively, for the allograft group. For the Cincinnati knee score, the average scores were 90 and 91 points, respectively, for the autograft and allograft groups.
Both groups of patients achieved almost the same satisfactory outcome at an average of 7.8 years of follow-up. Fresh-frozen hamstring tendon allograft is a reasonable alternative choice to autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
大多数前交叉韧带重建的同种异体与自体移植物的研究都是关于骨-髌腱-骨的;评估前交叉韧带重建中使用腘绳肌腱自体移植物与同种异体移植物的结果报告很少见。
本研究旨在比较关节镜下前交叉韧带重建中使用腘绳肌腱自体移植物与同种异体移植物的临床结果。
随机对照试验;证据水平,2。
2000 年至 2004 年,符合研究纳入和排除标准的 208 例患者前瞻性随机分为自体移植物(n = 104)或同种异体移植物(n = 104)组。所有腘绳肌腱同种异体移植物均为新鲜冷冻,来自单一认证组织库。所有手术均由同一位外科医生采用相同的手术技术进行。股骨和胫骨固定分别采用 EndoButton 和生物可吸收的干扰螺钉,并用一个订书钉增强。患者在术前和术后进行评估。评估包括详细的病史、体格检查、膝关节韧带功能检查、KT-2000 关节测量仪检查、Harner 垂直跳跃和 Daniel 单腿跳跃测试、Lysholm 评分、Tegner 评分、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)标准评估表、辛辛那提膝关节评分和影像学检查。
这些患者中,186 例(自体移植物组,n = 91;同种异体移植物组,n = 95)可进行全面评估。两组的人口统计学数据相当。两组的平均随访时间均为 7.8 年。除同种异体移植物组的手术时间短于自体移植物组外,两组上述结果评估均无统计学差异。自体移植物组有 7 例(7.7%)和同种异体移植物组有 8 例(8.4%)患者的侧副差值>5mm。自体移植物组 85 例(93.4%)和同种异体移植物组 86 例(90.5%)根据总体 IKDC 均为正常或接近正常。根据主观 IKDC,自体移植物组的平均评分为 89 分,同种异体移植物组的平均评分为 90 分。自体移植物组的 Lysholm 和 Tegner 评分分别为 89 分和 7.7 分,同种异体移植物组的 Lysholm 和 Tegner 评分分别为 90 分和 7.6 分。根据辛辛那提膝关节评分,自体移植物组的平均评分为 90 分,同种异体移植物组的平均评分为 91 分。
两组患者在平均 7.8 年的随访中均取得了几乎相同的满意结果。新鲜冷冻的腘绳肌腱同种异体移植物是前交叉韧带重建中自体移植物的合理替代选择。