Patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective This review aims to compare the clinical results of bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft and BPTB allograft in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods PubMed Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for prospective or retrospecti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology 2015-02, Vol.25 (2), p.355-365
Hauptverfasser: Yao, Li-Wei, Wang, Qi, Zhang, Liang, Zhang, Chao, Zhang, Bin, Zhang, Yan-Jun, Feng, Shi-Qing
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 365
container_issue 2
container_start_page 355
container_title European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology
container_volume 25
creator Yao, Li-Wei
Wang, Qi
Zhang, Liang
Zhang, Chao
Zhang, Bin
Zhang, Yan-Jun
Feng, Shi-Qing
description Objective This review aims to compare the clinical results of bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft and BPTB allograft in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods PubMed Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for prospective or retrospective cohort studies that compared BPTB autograft with BPTB allograft in ACL reconstruction. The results of the eligible studies were independently extracted and analyzed according to the following: one-leg test, range of motion (ROM), overall International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lachman test, pivot shift test, Lysholm scores, Tegner scores, KT-1000 test, anterior knee pain, crepitus, and clinical failure. Random-effect and fixed-effect models were adopted to calculate the weight mean difference and the odds ratio for continuous and dichotomous variables with 95 % confidence interval. Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 1,046 (484 autografts and 562 allografts) patients available for the present study. A meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups in terms of the following: one-leg test ( p  = 0.21), ROM ( p  = 0.41), overall IKDC ( p  = 0.25), Lysholm scores ( p  = 0.25), Tegner scores ( p  = 0.09), KT-1000 ( p  = 0.69), Lachman test ( p  = 0.89), positive pivot shift test ( p  = 0.18), anterior knee pain ( p  = 0.93), and crepitus (p  = 0.96). However, a significant difference in clinical failure ( p  = 0.01) in favor of autograft was observed. In the fresh-frozen subgroup, no difference in the evaluations, except for Tegner scores, were found between autograft and allograft. Conclusions Therefore, BPTB autograft shows potential as an optimal choice for ACL reconstruction on the basis of earlier functional recovery and fewer graft failure.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00590-014-1481-5
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1652391104</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2837222226</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3205-a95b661559b84ee19cf48808d301f0e5f5cb93d2abb4e1931153f29f3d71c17c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS0EoqXwAGyQJTZsDL52nHHYoYo_qVJZtGvLcW5GrpJ48HWK5iX6zHg0A0iV8MY_5zvHtg5jr0G-Byk3H0hK00khoRHQWBDmCTuHRisBsrVP67rVWljZmjP2guhOSjAdmOfsTDVWg5btOXv44QtOk8-84DKkhfu1pG32Y-H3mGklvnsMTNMJiHWzFMwxZR7yGmIl-RS3fsal8IwhLVTqeYlp-cg9pz0VnH2JoYr3EX9V-8BnLF74xU97ivSSPRv9RPjqNF-w2y-fby6_iavrr98vP12JoJU0wnemb1swputtgwhdGBtrpR20hFGiGU3oOz0o3_dNVTWA0aPqRj1sIMAm6Av27pi7y-nnilTcHCkc_rlgWslBa5TuAGRT0beP0Lu05vpecsrqjTqMtlJwpEJORBlHt8tx9nnvQLpDWe5YlqtluUNZzlTPm1Py2s84_HX8aacC6ghQlZYt5n9X_z_1Ny8Dobo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2837222226</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Yao, Li-Wei ; Wang, Qi ; Zhang, Liang ; Zhang, Chao ; Zhang, Bin ; Zhang, Yan-Jun ; Feng, Shi-Qing</creator><creatorcontrib>Yao, Li-Wei ; Wang, Qi ; Zhang, Liang ; Zhang, Chao ; Zhang, Bin ; Zhang, Yan-Jun ; Feng, Shi-Qing</creatorcontrib><description>Objective This review aims to compare the clinical results of bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft and BPTB allograft in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods PubMed Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for prospective or retrospective cohort studies that compared BPTB autograft with BPTB allograft in ACL reconstruction. The results of the eligible studies were independently extracted and analyzed according to the following: one-leg test, range of motion (ROM), overall International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lachman test, pivot shift test, Lysholm scores, Tegner scores, KT-1000 test, anterior knee pain, crepitus, and clinical failure. Random-effect and fixed-effect models were adopted to calculate the weight mean difference and the odds ratio for continuous and dichotomous variables with 95 % confidence interval. Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 1,046 (484 autografts and 562 allografts) patients available for the present study. A meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups in terms of the following: one-leg test ( p  = 0.21), ROM ( p  = 0.41), overall IKDC ( p  = 0.25), Lysholm scores ( p  = 0.25), Tegner scores ( p  = 0.09), KT-1000 ( p  = 0.69), Lachman test ( p  = 0.89), positive pivot shift test ( p  = 0.18), anterior knee pain ( p  = 0.93), and crepitus (p  = 0.96). However, a significant difference in clinical failure ( p  = 0.01) in favor of autograft was observed. In the fresh-frozen subgroup, no difference in the evaluations, except for Tegner scores, were found between autograft and allograft. Conclusions Therefore, BPTB autograft shows potential as an optimal choice for ACL reconstruction on the basis of earlier functional recovery and fewer graft failure.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1633-8065</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1068</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00590-014-1481-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24831306</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Paris: Springer Paris</publisher><subject>Allografts ; Arthralgia - etiology ; Autografts ; Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting - adverse effects ; Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting - methods ; Humans ; Joint Instability - etiology ; Knee ; Lysholm Knee Score ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Original Article ; Patellar Ligament - transplantation ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Surgical Orthopedics ; Traumatic Surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>European journal of orthopaedic surgery &amp; traumatology, 2015-02, Vol.25 (2), p.355-365</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag France 2014</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag France 2014.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3205-a95b661559b84ee19cf48808d301f0e5f5cb93d2abb4e1931153f29f3d71c17c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3205-a95b661559b84ee19cf48808d301f0e5f5cb93d2abb4e1931153f29f3d71c17c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00590-014-1481-5$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00590-014-1481-5$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24831306$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yao, Li-Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Qi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Chao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yan-Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feng, Shi-Qing</creatorcontrib><title>Patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>European journal of orthopaedic surgery &amp; traumatology</title><addtitle>Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol</addtitle><description>Objective This review aims to compare the clinical results of bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft and BPTB allograft in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods PubMed Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for prospective or retrospective cohort studies that compared BPTB autograft with BPTB allograft in ACL reconstruction. The results of the eligible studies were independently extracted and analyzed according to the following: one-leg test, range of motion (ROM), overall International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lachman test, pivot shift test, Lysholm scores, Tegner scores, KT-1000 test, anterior knee pain, crepitus, and clinical failure. Random-effect and fixed-effect models were adopted to calculate the weight mean difference and the odds ratio for continuous and dichotomous variables with 95 % confidence interval. Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 1,046 (484 autografts and 562 allografts) patients available for the present study. A meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups in terms of the following: one-leg test ( p  = 0.21), ROM ( p  = 0.41), overall IKDC ( p  = 0.25), Lysholm scores ( p  = 0.25), Tegner scores ( p  = 0.09), KT-1000 ( p  = 0.69), Lachman test ( p  = 0.89), positive pivot shift test ( p  = 0.18), anterior knee pain ( p  = 0.93), and crepitus (p  = 0.96). However, a significant difference in clinical failure ( p  = 0.01) in favor of autograft was observed. In the fresh-frozen subgroup, no difference in the evaluations, except for Tegner scores, were found between autograft and allograft. Conclusions Therefore, BPTB autograft shows potential as an optimal choice for ACL reconstruction on the basis of earlier functional recovery and fewer graft failure.</description><subject>Allografts</subject><subject>Arthralgia - etiology</subject><subject>Autografts</subject><subject>Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting - adverse effects</subject><subject>Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Joint Instability - etiology</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Lysholm Knee Score</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Patellar Ligament - transplantation</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Traumatic Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1633-8065</issn><issn>1432-1068</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS0EoqXwAGyQJTZsDL52nHHYoYo_qVJZtGvLcW5GrpJ48HWK5iX6zHg0A0iV8MY_5zvHtg5jr0G-Byk3H0hK00khoRHQWBDmCTuHRisBsrVP67rVWljZmjP2guhOSjAdmOfsTDVWg5btOXv44QtOk8-84DKkhfu1pG32Y-H3mGklvnsMTNMJiHWzFMwxZR7yGmIl-RS3fsal8IwhLVTqeYlp-cg9pz0VnH2JoYr3EX9V-8BnLF74xU97ivSSPRv9RPjqNF-w2y-fby6_iavrr98vP12JoJU0wnemb1swputtgwhdGBtrpR20hFGiGU3oOz0o3_dNVTWA0aPqRj1sIMAm6Av27pi7y-nnilTcHCkc_rlgWslBa5TuAGRT0beP0Lu05vpecsrqjTqMtlJwpEJORBlHt8tx9nnvQLpDWe5YlqtluUNZzlTPm1Py2s84_HX8aacC6ghQlZYt5n9X_z_1Ny8Dobo</recordid><startdate>20150201</startdate><enddate>20150201</enddate><creator>Yao, Li-Wei</creator><creator>Wang, Qi</creator><creator>Zhang, Liang</creator><creator>Zhang, Chao</creator><creator>Zhang, Bin</creator><creator>Zhang, Yan-Jun</creator><creator>Feng, Shi-Qing</creator><general>Springer Paris</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150201</creationdate><title>Patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Yao, Li-Wei ; Wang, Qi ; Zhang, Liang ; Zhang, Chao ; Zhang, Bin ; Zhang, Yan-Jun ; Feng, Shi-Qing</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3205-a95b661559b84ee19cf48808d301f0e5f5cb93d2abb4e1931153f29f3d71c17c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Allografts</topic><topic>Arthralgia - etiology</topic><topic>Autografts</topic><topic>Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting - adverse effects</topic><topic>Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Joint Instability - etiology</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Lysholm Knee Score</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Patellar Ligament - transplantation</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Traumatic Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yao, Li-Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Qi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Chao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yan-Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feng, Shi-Qing</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of orthopaedic surgery &amp; traumatology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yao, Li-Wei</au><au>Wang, Qi</au><au>Zhang, Liang</au><au>Zhang, Chao</au><au>Zhang, Bin</au><au>Zhang, Yan-Jun</au><au>Feng, Shi-Qing</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>European journal of orthopaedic surgery &amp; traumatology</jtitle><stitle>Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol</stitle><addtitle>Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol</addtitle><date>2015-02-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>355</spage><epage>365</epage><pages>355-365</pages><issn>1633-8065</issn><eissn>1432-1068</eissn><abstract>Objective This review aims to compare the clinical results of bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft and BPTB allograft in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods PubMed Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for prospective or retrospective cohort studies that compared BPTB autograft with BPTB allograft in ACL reconstruction. The results of the eligible studies were independently extracted and analyzed according to the following: one-leg test, range of motion (ROM), overall International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lachman test, pivot shift test, Lysholm scores, Tegner scores, KT-1000 test, anterior knee pain, crepitus, and clinical failure. Random-effect and fixed-effect models were adopted to calculate the weight mean difference and the odds ratio for continuous and dichotomous variables with 95 % confidence interval. Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 1,046 (484 autografts and 562 allografts) patients available for the present study. A meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups in terms of the following: one-leg test ( p  = 0.21), ROM ( p  = 0.41), overall IKDC ( p  = 0.25), Lysholm scores ( p  = 0.25), Tegner scores ( p  = 0.09), KT-1000 ( p  = 0.69), Lachman test ( p  = 0.89), positive pivot shift test ( p  = 0.18), anterior knee pain ( p  = 0.93), and crepitus (p  = 0.96). However, a significant difference in clinical failure ( p  = 0.01) in favor of autograft was observed. In the fresh-frozen subgroup, no difference in the evaluations, except for Tegner scores, were found between autograft and allograft. Conclusions Therefore, BPTB autograft shows potential as an optimal choice for ACL reconstruction on the basis of earlier functional recovery and fewer graft failure.</abstract><cop>Paris</cop><pub>Springer Paris</pub><pmid>24831306</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00590-014-1481-5</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1633-8065
ispartof European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology, 2015-02, Vol.25 (2), p.355-365
issn 1633-8065
1432-1068
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1652391104
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Allografts
Arthralgia - etiology
Autografts
Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting - adverse effects
Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting - methods
Humans
Joint Instability - etiology
Knee
Lysholm Knee Score
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Meta-analysis
Original Article
Patellar Ligament - transplantation
Range of Motion, Articular
Surgical Orthopedics
Traumatic Surgery
Treatment Outcome
title Patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T00%3A23%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patellar%20tendon%20autograft%20versus%20patellar%20tendon%20allograft%20in%20anterior%20cruciate%20ligament%20reconstruction:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20orthopaedic%20surgery%20&%20traumatology&rft.au=Yao,%20Li-Wei&rft.date=2015-02-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=355&rft.epage=365&rft.pages=355-365&rft.issn=1633-8065&rft.eissn=1432-1068&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00590-014-1481-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2837222226%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2837222226&rft_id=info:pmid/24831306&rfr_iscdi=true