Cargando…

Different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up

PURPOSE: The use of allografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is increasing although they are still supposed to be associated to greater risk of re-rupture due to a slower and less efficient graft maturation. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cusumano, Andrea, Capitani, Paolo, Messina, Carmelo, de Girolamo, Laura, Viganò, Marco, Ravasio, Giovanni, Facchini, Francesca, Sconfienza, Luca Maria, Zerbi, Alberto, Schoenhuber, Herbert, Pozzoni, Roberto, Thiébat, Gabriele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8592808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34782927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06785-4
_version_ 1784599555021471744
author Cusumano, Andrea
Capitani, Paolo
Messina, Carmelo
de Girolamo, Laura
Viganò, Marco
Ravasio, Giovanni
Facchini, Francesca
Sconfienza, Luca Maria
Zerbi, Alberto
Schoenhuber, Herbert
Pozzoni, Roberto
Thiébat, Gabriele
author_facet Cusumano, Andrea
Capitani, Paolo
Messina, Carmelo
de Girolamo, Laura
Viganò, Marco
Ravasio, Giovanni
Facchini, Francesca
Sconfienza, Luca Maria
Zerbi, Alberto
Schoenhuber, Herbert
Pozzoni, Roberto
Thiébat, Gabriele
author_sort Cusumano, Andrea
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The use of allografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is increasing although they are still supposed to be associated to greater risk of re-rupture due to a slower and less efficient graft maturation. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to compare the graft maturation after ACLR with allograft and autograft by MRI at 6- and 12-month follow-up and integrate these data with the functional and clinical results observed at 6-, 12- and 60-month follow-up. METHODS: Fifty patients with indication to primary ACLR were randomly and equally divided into hamstring autograft or allograft tendon groups. The graft maturation was measured at 6- and 12-month follow-up by the SNQ score and other radiological parameters on MRI scans. Clinical and functional recovery was evaluated by Lysholm score, Visual Analogues Scale, Tegner activity scale and modified Cincinnati knee rating system at 6, 12 and 60 months after surgery to estimate the predictive value of the radiological parameters for clinical outcomes. Return-to-sport (ACL-RSI) was measured 60 months after surgery. RESULTS: Three patients had retear of the neo-ligament (two from Auto group and one from Allo group). All the clinical/functional parameters significantly improved over time, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. At 6 months, the SNQ value was significantly higher in the Auto than in the Allo group (12.9 vs 7.9, p = 0.038), but at 12 months they were comparable (9.8 vs 10.4). The 6-month SNQ values did not correlate with the clinical scores, whereas the 12-month SNQ values significantly correlated with the Cincinnati score, Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale collected at 60-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: No clinical or functional differences have been found between the two treatment groups, supporting the suitability of using allograft in primary ACLR, when available. The results at MRI scans showed a different graft maturation trend in the two groups, with allografts being more reactive in the first 6 months. MRI together with the subjective evaluation allows to evaluate objectively the status of the neo-ligamentization process and therefore helps the surgeon to dictate the individual time for return-to-sport. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00167-021-06785-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8592808
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85928082021-11-16 Different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up Cusumano, Andrea Capitani, Paolo Messina, Carmelo de Girolamo, Laura Viganò, Marco Ravasio, Giovanni Facchini, Francesca Sconfienza, Luca Maria Zerbi, Alberto Schoenhuber, Herbert Pozzoni, Roberto Thiébat, Gabriele Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Knee PURPOSE: The use of allografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is increasing although they are still supposed to be associated to greater risk of re-rupture due to a slower and less efficient graft maturation. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to compare the graft maturation after ACLR with allograft and autograft by MRI at 6- and 12-month follow-up and integrate these data with the functional and clinical results observed at 6-, 12- and 60-month follow-up. METHODS: Fifty patients with indication to primary ACLR were randomly and equally divided into hamstring autograft or allograft tendon groups. The graft maturation was measured at 6- and 12-month follow-up by the SNQ score and other radiological parameters on MRI scans. Clinical and functional recovery was evaluated by Lysholm score, Visual Analogues Scale, Tegner activity scale and modified Cincinnati knee rating system at 6, 12 and 60 months after surgery to estimate the predictive value of the radiological parameters for clinical outcomes. Return-to-sport (ACL-RSI) was measured 60 months after surgery. RESULTS: Three patients had retear of the neo-ligament (two from Auto group and one from Allo group). All the clinical/functional parameters significantly improved over time, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. At 6 months, the SNQ value was significantly higher in the Auto than in the Allo group (12.9 vs 7.9, p = 0.038), but at 12 months they were comparable (9.8 vs 10.4). The 6-month SNQ values did not correlate with the clinical scores, whereas the 12-month SNQ values significantly correlated with the Cincinnati score, Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale collected at 60-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: No clinical or functional differences have been found between the two treatment groups, supporting the suitability of using allograft in primary ACLR, when available. The results at MRI scans showed a different graft maturation trend in the two groups, with allografts being more reactive in the first 6 months. MRI together with the subjective evaluation allows to evaluate objectively the status of the neo-ligamentization process and therefore helps the surgeon to dictate the individual time for return-to-sport. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00167-021-06785-4. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-11-16 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8592808/ /pubmed/34782927 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06785-4 Text en © The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Knee
Cusumano, Andrea
Capitani, Paolo
Messina, Carmelo
de Girolamo, Laura
Viganò, Marco
Ravasio, Giovanni
Facchini, Francesca
Sconfienza, Luca Maria
Zerbi, Alberto
Schoenhuber, Herbert
Pozzoni, Roberto
Thiébat, Gabriele
Different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up
title Different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up
title_full Different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up
title_fullStr Different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up
title_full_unstemmed Different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up
title_short Different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up
title_sort different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up
topic Knee
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8592808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34782927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06785-4
work_keys_str_mv AT cusumanoandrea differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT capitanipaolo differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT messinacarmelo differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT degirolamolaura differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT viganomarco differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT ravasiogiovanni differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT facchinifrancesca differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT sconfienzalucamaria differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT zerbialberto differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT schoenhuberherbert differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT pozzoniroberto differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup
AT thiebatgabriele differenttiminginallograftandautograftmaturationafterprimaryanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructiondoesnotinfluencetheclinicaloutcomeatmidlongtermfollowup