Cargando…

Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to compare and analyze retrospectively the outcomes of arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft versus allograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-one patients who underwent arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Xiujiang, Zhang, Jianfeng, Qu, Xiaoyi, Zheng, Yanping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4424256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25995757
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2015.50971
_version_ 1782370308949278720
author Sun, Xiujiang
Zhang, Jianfeng
Qu, Xiaoyi
Zheng, Yanping
author_facet Sun, Xiujiang
Zhang, Jianfeng
Qu, Xiaoyi
Zheng, Yanping
author_sort Sun, Xiujiang
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to compare and analyze retrospectively the outcomes of arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft versus allograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4424256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44242562015-05-20 Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft Sun, Xiujiang Zhang, Jianfeng Qu, Xiaoyi Zheng, Yanping Arch Med Sci Clinical Research INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to compare and analyze retrospectively the outcomes of arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft versus allograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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. Termedia Publishing House 2015-04-23 2015-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4424256/ /pubmed/25995757 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2015.50971 Text en Copyright © 2015 Termedia & Banach http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Sun, Xiujiang
Zhang, Jianfeng
Qu, Xiaoyi
Zheng, Yanping
Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft
title Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft
title_full Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft
title_fullStr Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft
title_full_unstemmed Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft
title_short Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft
title_sort arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4424256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25995757
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2015.50971
work_keys_str_mv AT sunxiujiang arthroscopicposteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionwithallograftversusautograft
AT zhangjianfeng arthroscopicposteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionwithallograftversusautograft
AT quxiaoyi arthroscopicposteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionwithallograftversusautograft
AT zhengyanping arthroscopicposteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionwithallograftversusautograft