Sun Xiujiang, Zhang Jianfeng, Qu Xiaoyi, Zheng Yanping
Department of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Department of Orthopedics, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, China.
Arch Med Sci. 2015 Apr 25;11(2):395-401. doi: 10.5114/aoms.2015.50971. Epub 2015 Apr 23.
The aim of the study was to compare and analyze retrospectively the outcomes of arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft versus allograft.
Seventy-one patients who underwent arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with an autograft or allograft met our inclusion criteria. There were 36 patients in the autograft group and 35 patients in the allograft group. All the patients were evaluated by physical examination and a functional ligament test. Comparative analysis was done in terms of operation time, incision length, fever time, postoperative infection rate, incidence of numbness and dysesthesia around the incision, as well as a routine blood test.
The average follow-up of the autograft group was 3.2 ±0.2 years and that of the allograft group was 3.3 ±0.6 years; there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). No differences existed in knee range of motion, Lysholm scores, International Knee Documentation Committee standard evaluation form and Tegner activity score at final follow-up (p > 0.05), except that patients in the allograft group had a shorter operation time and incision length and a longer fever time (p < 0.05). We found a difference in posterior drawer test and KT-2000 arthrometer assessment (p < 0.05). The posterior tibia displacement averaged 3.8 ±1.5 mm in the autograft group and 4.8 ±1.7 mm in the allograft group (p < 0.05). The incidence of numbness and dysesthesia around the incision in the autograft group was higher than that in the allograft group (p < 0.05). There was no infection postoperatively. The white blood cells and neutrophils in the allograft group increased more than those in the autograft group postoperatively (p < 0.05).
Both groups of patients had satisfactory outcomes after the operation. However, in the instrumented posterior laxity test, the autograft gave better results than the allograft. No differences in functional scores were found.
本研究的目的是对自体移植与异体移植关节镜下后交叉韧带重建的结果进行回顾性比较和分析。
71例行自体或异体移植关节镜下后交叉韧带重建的患者符合我们的纳入标准。自体移植组有36例患者，异体移植组有35例患者。所有患者均通过体格检查和韧带功能测试进行评估。对手术时间、切口长度、发热时间、术后感染率、切口周围麻木和感觉异常的发生率以及血常规进行了比较分析。
自体移植组的平均随访时间为3.2±0.2年，异体移植组为3.3±0.6年；差异无统计学意义（p>0.05）。末次随访时，两组患者的膝关节活动范围、Lysholm评分、国际膝关节文献委员会标准评估表和Tegner活动评分无差异（p>0.05），但异体移植组的手术时间和切口长度较短，发热时间较长（p<0.05）。我们发现后抽屉试验和KT-2000关节测量仪评估存在差异（p<0.05）。自体移植组胫骨后移平均为3.8±1.5mm，异体移植组为4.8±1.7mm（p<0.05）。自体移植组切口周围麻木和感觉异常的发生率高于异体移植组（p<0.05）。术后无感染发生。异体移植组术后白细胞和中性粒细胞的增加幅度大于自体移植组（p<0.05）。
两组患者术后均取得了满意的效果。然而，在仪器测量的后松弛度试验中，自体移植的效果优于异体移植。功能评分无差异。
