Clinical research
Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft
 
More details
Hide details
Submission date: 2013-03-02
Final revision date: 2013-04-12
Acceptance date: 2013-05-11
Online publication date: 2015-04-23
Publication date: 2015-04-30
 
Arch Med Sci 2015;11(2):395–401
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
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.
eISSN:1896-9151
ISSN:1734-1922