Cargando…
Graft Selection Between Tendon Autograft and Allograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Based on the Histological Perspective: A Meta-Analysis
Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare ligament healing on autograft and allograft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods: The selection of appropriate studies was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
2023
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10310419/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37396080 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1768618 |
Sumario: | Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare ligament healing on autograft and allograft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods: The selection of appropriate studies was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We made a statistical analysis using a review manager. Electronic reports were searched using the PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases. The inclusion criteria were animal studies and cellular histology of both grafts as an outcome. Results: The initial search revealed 412 potential articles. After duplicates were removed, 246 articles remained. Then, 14 articles were obtained and screened for relevance and eligibility. The relevant articles were searched manually, checking for eligibility and details in order not to miss included reports. Subsequently, 5 studies were included, with a total of 232 samples, reporting the biopsied results with quantitative histology of ligament healing between allograft and autograft. The biopsy samples in those studies were examined under light or electron microscope, to analyze the cellular distribution area and ligamentization stages in each group. Meta-analyses found significant difference between autograft and allograft (Heterogeneity, I2 = 89%; Mean Difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −34.92, −54.90, −14.93; p = 0.0006). There is also a significant difference on both graft in cellular count at over 24 weeks (Heterogeneity, I2 = 26%; Mean Difference, 95% CI = −14.59, −16.24, −12.94; p < 0.00001). Conclusion: In the current meta-analysis, autograft shows a significant difference when compared to allograft, with more cellular accumulation and faster remodeling response on the ligamentization process being noticed in the former. However, a larger clinical trial will be needed to emphasize this literature's result. |
---|