Cargando…

A Prospective Randomized Comparison using MRI of Two Distinct Allogenic Tissue Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

OBJECTIVES: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring tendon (HT) allograft vs. doubled tibialis anterior (TA) allograft. METHODS: Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial (PRCT) at a single center was co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rose, Michael, Farooqi, Mehwish, Quilici, Samantha, Crawford, Dennis C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4901675/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967115S00008
_version_ 1782436854514057216
author Rose, Michael
Farooqi, Mehwish
Quilici, Samantha
Crawford, Dennis C.
author_facet Rose, Michael
Farooqi, Mehwish
Quilici, Samantha
Crawford, Dennis C.
author_sort Rose, Michael
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring tendon (HT) allograft vs. doubled tibialis anterior (TA) allograft. METHODS: Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial (PRCT) at a single center was conducted with enrollment from 7/2010 to 4/2012. One hundred subjects undergoing primary ACL reconstruction were randomized to either HT or TA allograft (47 vs. 53, respectively). Subjects completed KOOS, IKDC, Tegner, VR-12, and Lysholm outcomes measure pre-operatively, and then post-operatively at the 6 month and 24 month time period. Arthrometric testing using KT-1000 (MEDmetric® Corporation) was applied at 6 months post-operatively. At this time patients also underwent MRI to evaluate allograft integrity and ligamentization. The signal to noise quotient (SNQ) was calculated via the Impax markup tool (Afga HealthCare®) using sagittal non-contrast T2 weighted MRI (Figure 1) as follows: SNQ = (Signal graft - Signal Quadriceps)/Signal Background RESULTS: MRIs were obtained in the HT (n=22, 53%, 205.6 ± 35.7 days) and TA (n=23, 47%, 187.3 ± 26.0 days) groups. The average SNQ for the HT and TA allografts were .94 ± 3.03 and 4.14 ± 3.64, respectively (p = 0.12). There was no correlation between MRI SNQ and subject age, BMI, sex, graft diameter or smoking status. With arthrometric testing there was a trend for the HT allografts to have increased laxity as compared to contralateral side but the magnitude of difference was not clinically relevant (average 0.88 vs. 0.40mm, respectively). At an average of 2.4 ± 0.4 years there was no difference detected between groups in any of the outcomes scores with each showing improvement from baseline (Table 1). Allograft re-tear rates were similar between groups (9.5% HT vs. 4.5% TA, p=1.0). CONCLUSION: Limited data exists directly comparing different ACL allograft soft tissue constructs. Specifically, to the author’s knowledge this is the first prospective RCT comparing quadrupled hamstring tendon and doubled tibialis anterior allografts. Our data indicate no difference in graft failure rate, rate of ligamentization, and similar significant improvement from baseline with respect to subjective outcomes scores between each treatment group after more than two years.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4901675
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49016752016-06-10 A Prospective Randomized Comparison using MRI of Two Distinct Allogenic Tissue Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Rose, Michael Farooqi, Mehwish Quilici, Samantha Crawford, Dennis C. Orthop J Sports Med Article OBJECTIVES: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring tendon (HT) allograft vs. doubled tibialis anterior (TA) allograft. METHODS: Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial (PRCT) at a single center was conducted with enrollment from 7/2010 to 4/2012. One hundred subjects undergoing primary ACL reconstruction were randomized to either HT or TA allograft (47 vs. 53, respectively). Subjects completed KOOS, IKDC, Tegner, VR-12, and Lysholm outcomes measure pre-operatively, and then post-operatively at the 6 month and 24 month time period. Arthrometric testing using KT-1000 (MEDmetric® Corporation) was applied at 6 months post-operatively. At this time patients also underwent MRI to evaluate allograft integrity and ligamentization. The signal to noise quotient (SNQ) was calculated via the Impax markup tool (Afga HealthCare®) using sagittal non-contrast T2 weighted MRI (Figure 1) as follows: SNQ = (Signal graft - Signal Quadriceps)/Signal Background RESULTS: MRIs were obtained in the HT (n=22, 53%, 205.6 ± 35.7 days) and TA (n=23, 47%, 187.3 ± 26.0 days) groups. The average SNQ for the HT and TA allografts were .94 ± 3.03 and 4.14 ± 3.64, respectively (p = 0.12). There was no correlation between MRI SNQ and subject age, BMI, sex, graft diameter or smoking status. With arthrometric testing there was a trend for the HT allografts to have increased laxity as compared to contralateral side but the magnitude of difference was not clinically relevant (average 0.88 vs. 0.40mm, respectively). At an average of 2.4 ± 0.4 years there was no difference detected between groups in any of the outcomes scores with each showing improvement from baseline (Table 1). Allograft re-tear rates were similar between groups (9.5% HT vs. 4.5% TA, p=1.0). CONCLUSION: Limited data exists directly comparing different ACL allograft soft tissue constructs. Specifically, to the author’s knowledge this is the first prospective RCT comparing quadrupled hamstring tendon and doubled tibialis anterior allografts. Our data indicate no difference in graft failure rate, rate of ligamentization, and similar significant improvement from baseline with respect to subjective outcomes scores between each treatment group after more than two years. SAGE Publications 2015-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4901675/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967115S00008 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
spellingShingle Article
Rose, Michael
Farooqi, Mehwish
Quilici, Samantha
Crawford, Dennis C.
A Prospective Randomized Comparison using MRI of Two Distinct Allogenic Tissue Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title A Prospective Randomized Comparison using MRI of Two Distinct Allogenic Tissue Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_full A Prospective Randomized Comparison using MRI of Two Distinct Allogenic Tissue Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_fullStr A Prospective Randomized Comparison using MRI of Two Distinct Allogenic Tissue Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed A Prospective Randomized Comparison using MRI of Two Distinct Allogenic Tissue Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_short A Prospective Randomized Comparison using MRI of Two Distinct Allogenic Tissue Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_sort prospective randomized comparison using mri of two distinct allogenic tissue constructs for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4901675/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967115S00008
work_keys_str_mv AT rosemichael aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonusingmrioftwodistinctallogenictissueconstructsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT farooqimehwish aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonusingmrioftwodistinctallogenictissueconstructsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT quilicisamantha aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonusingmrioftwodistinctallogenictissueconstructsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT crawforddennisc aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonusingmrioftwodistinctallogenictissueconstructsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT rosemichael prospectiverandomizedcomparisonusingmrioftwodistinctallogenictissueconstructsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT farooqimehwish prospectiverandomizedcomparisonusingmrioftwodistinctallogenictissueconstructsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT quilicisamantha prospectiverandomizedcomparisonusingmrioftwodistinctallogenictissueconstructsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT crawforddennisc prospectiverandomizedcomparisonusingmrioftwodistinctallogenictissueconstructsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction