Dataset Information

Autograft versus allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is considered as the standard surgical procedure for the treatment of ACL tear. However, there is a crucial controversy in terms of whether to use autograft or allograft in ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare autograft with allograft for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared autograft with allograft in ACL reconstruction up to January 31, 2016. The relative risk or mean difference with 95% confidence interval was calculated using either a fixed- or random-effects model. The risk of bias for individual studies according to the Cochrane Handbook. The trial sequential analysis was used to test the robustness of our findings and get more conservative estimates.

Results

Thirteen trials were included, involving 1636 participants. The results of this meta-analysis indicated that autograft brought about lower clinical failure, better overall International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) level, better pivot-shift test, better Lachman test, greater Tegner score, and better instrumented laxity test (P < 0.05) than allograft. Autograft was not statistically different from allograft in Lysholm score, subjective IKDC score, and Daniel 1-leg hop test (P > 0.05). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that autograft was superior to irradiated allograft for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction in clinical failure, Lysholm score, pivot-shift test, Lachman test, Tegner score, instrumented laxity test, and subjective IKDC score (P < 0.05). Moreover, there were no significant differences between autograft and nonirradiated allograft.

Conclusions

Autograft is superior to irradiated allograft for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction concerning knee function and laxity, but there are no significant differences between autograft and nonirradiated allograft. However, our results should be interpreted with caution, because the blinding methods were not well used.

SUBMITTER: Kan SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5044918 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn autograft has traditionally been the gold standard for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but the use of allograft tissue has increased in recent years. While numerous studies have demonstrated that irradiated allografts are associated with increased failure rates, some report excellent results after ACLR with nonirradiated allografts. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether the use of nonirradiated allograft tissue is associated with poorer outcomes when compared with autografts.HypothesisPatients undergoing ACLR with autografts versus nonirradiated allografts will demonstrate no significant differences in graft failure risk, laxity on postoperative physical examination, or differences in patient-oriented outcome scores.Study designSystematic review.MethodsA systematic review was performed to identify prospective or retrospective comparative studies (evidence level 1, 2, or 3) of autografts versus nonirradiated allografts for ACLR. Outcome data included graft failure based on clinical findings and instrumented laxity, postoperative laxity on physical examination, and patient-reported outcome scores. Studies were excluded if they did not specify whether the allograft had been irradiated. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by 2 examiners.ResultsNine studies comparing autografts and nonirradiated allografts were included. Six of the 9 studies compared bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts with BPTB allografts. Two studies compared hamstring tendon autografts to hamstring tendon allografts, and 1 study compared hamstring tendon autografts to tibialis anterior allografts. The mean patient age in 7 of 9 studies ranged from 24.5 to 32 years, with 1 study including only patients older than 40 years and another not reporting patient age. The mean follow-up duration was 24 to 94 months. Six of 9 studies reported clinical graft failure rates, 8 of 9 reported postoperative instrumented laxity measurements, 7 of 9 reported postoperative physical examination findings, and all studies reported patient-reported outcome scores. This review demonstrated no statistically significant difference between autografts and nonirradiated allografts in any outcome measure.ConclusionNo significant differences were found in graft failure rate, postoperative laxity, or patient-reported outcome scores when comparing ACLR with autografts to nonirradiated allografts in this systematic review. These findings apply to patients in their late 20s and early 30s. Caution is advised when considering extrapolation of these findings to younger, more active cohorts.

Project description:Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can be performed with use of either autograft or allograft tissue. It is currently unclear if the outcomes of these two methods differ significantly. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether the short-term clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate reconstruction with allograft were significantly different from those with autograft.A computerized search of the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted. Only therapeutic studies with a prospective or retrospective comparative design were considered for inclusion in the present investigation. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted relevant data from each included study. If a study failed the qualitative assessment and statistical tests of homogeneity, it was excluded from the meta-analysis. Furthermore, a study was withdrawn from the meta-analysis of a particular outcome if that outcome was not studied or was not reported adequately. A Mantel-Haenszel analysis utilizing a random-effects model allowed for pooling of results according to graft source while accounting for the number of subjects in individual studies.Nine studies were determined to be appropriate for the systematic review. Eight studies compared bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts, and one study compared quadruple-stranded hamstring grafts. Five studies were prospective comparative studies, and four were retrospective comparative studies. One study, which investigated allografts that underwent a unique sterilization process, demonstrated an allograft failure rate of 45% (thirty-eight of eighty-five). That study failed the qualitative assessment and statistical tests of homogeneity and consequently was excluded from the meta-analysis. When the outcomes from the remaining studies were pooled according to graft source, the meta-analyses of the Lysholm score, instrumented laxity measurements, and the clinical failure rate estimated mean differences and odds ratios that were not significant. These findings were robust during the sensitivity analysis, which varied the included studies or variables on the basis of graft type, instrumented laxity cut-off value, secondary sterilization technique, duration of follow-up, mean patient age, and study methodology.In general, the short-term clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate reconstruction with allograft were not significantly different from those with autograft. However, it is important to note that none of these nonrandomized studies stratified outcomes according to age or utilized multivariable modeling to mathematically control for age (or any other possible confounder, such as activity level, that is not equally distributed in the two treatment groups). Understanding these limitations of the best available evidence, the surgeon may incorporate the results of the present systematic review into the informed-consent and shared-decision-making process in order to individualize optimum patient care.