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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology 2015-02, Vol.25 (2), p.355-365 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 & 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 & 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 |