Prospective Comparison of Auto and Allograft Hamstring Tendon Constructs for ACL Reconstruction

Although allograft use for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has continued to increase during the last 10 years, concerns remain regarding the long-term function of allografts (primarily that they may stretch with time) and clinical efficacy compared with autograft tendons. We attempted to address these issues by prospectively comparing identical quadrupled hamstring autografts with allograft constructs for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with a minimum followup of 3 years. Eighty-four patients (37 with autografts and 47 with allografts) were enrolled; the mean followup was 52 ± 11 months for the autograft group and 48 ± 8 months for the allograft group. Outcome measurements included objective and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores, Lysholm scores, Tegner activity scales, and KT-1000 arthrometer measurements. The two cohorts were similar in average age, acute or chronic nature of the anterior cruciate ligament rupture, and incidence of concomitant meniscal surgeries. At final followup, we found no difference in terms of Tegner, Lysholm, KT-1000, or International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Five anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions failed: three in the autograft group and two in the allograft group. Our data suggest laxity is not increased in allograft tendons compared with autografts and clinical outcome scores 3 to 6 years after surgery are similar

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcome and evidence for return to sport

An increasing number of patients undergo revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, with the intention of returning to sport being a major indication. The aim of this study is to assess the available evidence for clinical improvement and return to sport, to understand the real potential of this procedure in regaining functional activity, and to facilitate improved counselling of patients regarding the expected outcome after revision ACL reconstruction