Cargando…

Allograft Bone Dowel Incorporation to Tibial and Femoral Tunnels in Two–Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (173)

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the radiographic outcomes of allograft dowels used as bone grafts in two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Prospective review of patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR with allograft bo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kew, Michelle, Buyukdogan, Kadir, Laidlaw, Michael, Miller, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8559283/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121S00293
_version_ 1784592729957728256
author Kew, Michelle
Buyukdogan, Kadir
Laidlaw, Michael
Miller, Mark
author_facet Kew, Michelle
Buyukdogan, Kadir
Laidlaw, Michael
Miller, Mark
author_sort Kew, Michelle
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the radiographic outcomes of allograft dowels used as bone grafts in two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Prospective review of patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR with allograft bone dowels. Inclusion criteria were tibial/femoral tunnel diameter of >14 mm on pre-operative computed tomography (CT), overlapping prior tunnels with new tunnels (Figure 1). Allograft dowels were placed during the first stage and arthroscopic assessment of dowels was performed at the second-stage revision (Figure 2). Quantitative analysis of radiographic incorporation rates was performed with the Union Ratio (UR, Figure 3A) and Occupying Ratio (OR, Figure 3B) on post-operative CT scans. Biopsy specimens were obtained to analyze incorporation. RESULTS: 21 patients were included. Second-stage revision surgeries were performed at 6.5 months (SD, 2.1 months) after first-stage revision. All dowels preserved their integrity without any signs of degradation and complete incorporation at the host bone and graft junction at the second stage procedure. The average diameter of the dowels placed in tibial tunnels were greater than those placed in femoral tunnels (16.1 mm [SD, 2.3 mm] vs 12.4 mm [SD, 1.6 mm]; p = < .05). CT scans were obtained at 121 days (SD, 28 days) after the first-stage. There was no difference between the OR of femoral and tibial tunnels (87.6% [SD, 4.8%] vs 85.7% [SD, 10.1%]; p = .484), however, the UR was significantly higher in femoral tunnels (74% [SD, 10.5%] vs 83%[ SD, 6.2%], p = 0.005). Histological examination revealed osseous incorporation between the host bone and allograft dowel (Figure 4). CONCLUSIONS: Allograft bone dowels are a safe graft choice to replenish bone stock in the setting of a staged revision ACL reconstruction and dowels placed in femoral tunnels had a higher healing union ratio. Further studies are warranted to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes in this subset of patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8559283
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85592832021-11-04 Allograft Bone Dowel Incorporation to Tibial and Femoral Tunnels in Two–Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (173) Kew, Michelle Buyukdogan, Kadir Laidlaw, Michael Miller, Mark Orthop J Sports Med Article OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the radiographic outcomes of allograft dowels used as bone grafts in two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Prospective review of patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR with allograft bone dowels. Inclusion criteria were tibial/femoral tunnel diameter of >14 mm on pre-operative computed tomography (CT), overlapping prior tunnels with new tunnels (Figure 1). Allograft dowels were placed during the first stage and arthroscopic assessment of dowels was performed at the second-stage revision (Figure 2). Quantitative analysis of radiographic incorporation rates was performed with the Union Ratio (UR, Figure 3A) and Occupying Ratio (OR, Figure 3B) on post-operative CT scans. Biopsy specimens were obtained to analyze incorporation. RESULTS: 21 patients were included. Second-stage revision surgeries were performed at 6.5 months (SD, 2.1 months) after first-stage revision. All dowels preserved their integrity without any signs of degradation and complete incorporation at the host bone and graft junction at the second stage procedure. The average diameter of the dowels placed in tibial tunnels were greater than those placed in femoral tunnels (16.1 mm [SD, 2.3 mm] vs 12.4 mm [SD, 1.6 mm]; p = < .05). CT scans were obtained at 121 days (SD, 28 days) after the first-stage. There was no difference between the OR of femoral and tibial tunnels (87.6% [SD, 4.8%] vs 85.7% [SD, 10.1%]; p = .484), however, the UR was significantly higher in femoral tunnels (74% [SD, 10.5%] vs 83%[ SD, 6.2%], p = 0.005). Histological examination revealed osseous incorporation between the host bone and allograft dowel (Figure 4). CONCLUSIONS: Allograft bone dowels are a safe graft choice to replenish bone stock in the setting of a staged revision ACL reconstruction and dowels placed in femoral tunnels had a higher healing union ratio. Further studies are warranted to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes in this subset of patients. SAGE Publications 2021-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8559283/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121S00293 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), 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 article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s website at http://www.sagepub.com/journals-permissions.
spellingShingle Article
Kew, Michelle
Buyukdogan, Kadir
Laidlaw, Michael
Miller, Mark
Allograft Bone Dowel Incorporation to Tibial and Femoral Tunnels in Two–Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (173)
title Allograft Bone Dowel Incorporation to Tibial and Femoral Tunnels in Two–Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (173)
title_full Allograft Bone Dowel Incorporation to Tibial and Femoral Tunnels in Two–Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (173)
title_fullStr Allograft Bone Dowel Incorporation to Tibial and Femoral Tunnels in Two–Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (173)
title_full_unstemmed Allograft Bone Dowel Incorporation to Tibial and Femoral Tunnels in Two–Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (173)
title_short Allograft Bone Dowel Incorporation to Tibial and Femoral Tunnels in Two–Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (173)
title_sort allograft bone dowel incorporation to tibial and femoral tunnels in two–stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (173)
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8559283/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121S00293
work_keys_str_mv AT kewmichelle allograftbonedowelincorporationtotibialandfemoraltunnelsintwostagerevisionanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction173
AT buyukdogankadir allograftbonedowelincorporationtotibialandfemoraltunnelsintwostagerevisionanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction173
AT laidlawmichael allograftbonedowelincorporationtotibialandfemoraltunnelsintwostagerevisionanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction173
AT millermark allograftbonedowelincorporationtotibialandfemoraltunnelsintwostagerevisionanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction173