Graft selection in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Emilio Romanini, Franca D'Angelo, Salvatore De Masi, Ezio Adriani, Massimiliano Magaletti, Eleonora Lacorte, Paola Laricchiuta, Luciano Sagliocca, Cristina Morciano, Alfonso Mele, Emilio Romanini, Franca D'Angelo, Salvatore De Masi, Ezio Adriani, Massimiliano Magaletti, Eleonora Lacorte, Paola Laricchiuta, Luciano Sagliocca, Cristina Morciano, Alfonso Mele

Abstract

Background: anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgical reconstruction is performed with the use of an autogenic, allogenic or synthetic graft. The document issued by the Italian National Guidelines System (SNLG, Sistema Nazionale Linee Guida) at the National Institute of Health aims to guide orthopaedic surgeons in selecting the optimal graft for ACL reconstruction using an evidence-based approach.

Materials and methods: A monodisciplinary panel was formed to define a restricted number of clinical questions, develop specific search strategies and critically appraise the literature using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method. The final draft was shared by the panel and then sent to four external referees to assess its readability and clarity, its clinical relevance and the feasibility of recommendations.

Results: autograft shows moderate superiority compared with allograft, in relation to the relevant outcomes and the quality of selected evidence, after an appropriate risk-benefit assessment. Allograft shows higher failure rate and higher risk of infection. The panel recommends use of autografts; patellar tendon should be the first choice, due to its higher stability, while use of hamstring is indicated for subjects for whom knee pain can represent a particular problem (e.g., some categories of workers).

Conclusions: autograft shows better performance compared with allograft and no significant heterogeneity in relation to relevant outcomes. The GRADE method allowed collation of all the information needed to draw up the recommendations, and to highlight the core points for discussion.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Search strategy and inclusion criteria

References

    1. Mountcastle SB, Posner M, Kragh JF, Jr, Taylor DC. Gender differences in anterior cruciate ligament injury vary with activity: epidemiology of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in a young, athletic population. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:1635–1642. doi: 10.1177/0363546507302917.
    1. Marx RG, Jones EC, Angel M, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Beliefs and attitudes of members of the American academy of orthopedic surgeons regarding the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(7):762–770. doi: 10.1016/S0749-8063(03)00398-0.
    1. Kapoor B, Clement DJ, Kirkley A, Maffulli N. Current practice in the management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in the United Kingdom. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38(5):542–544. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2002.002568.
    1. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2004) A guideline developers’ handbook. Last updated Mar 2004.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group (2008) Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 336:1049–1051
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group (2008) What is the “quality of evidence” and why is it important for the clinicians. BMJ 336:995–998
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Jaeschke R, Helfand M, Liberati A, Vist GE, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group (2008) Incorporating considerations of resources use into grade recommendations. BMJ 336:1170–1173
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr, Kunz R, Craig J, Montori VM, Bossuyt P, Guyatt GH, GRADE Working Group (2008) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic test and strategies. BMJ 336:1106–1110
    1. Grade Working Group Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490.
    1. Yunes M, Richmond CJ, Engels EA, Pinezewski LA. Patellar versus hamstring tendons in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(3):248–257. doi: 10.1053/jars.2001.21242.
    1. Freedman KB, D’Amato MJ, Nedeff DD, Ari Kaz e Bach BR. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a metaanalysis comparing patella tendon and hamstring tendon autograft. Am J Sport Med. 2003;3:2–11.
    1. Schultz W, Carr C. Comparison of clinical outcomes of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: autogenous patellar tendon and hamstring grafts. Am J Orthop. 2002;31(11):613–620.
    1. Herrington L, Wrapson C, Matthews M, Matthews H. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, hamstring versus bone—patella tendon—bone grafts: a systematic literature review of outcome from surgery. Knee. 2005;12:41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.02.003.
    1. Biau DJ, Tournoux C, Katsahian S, Schranz PJ, Nizard RS. Bone-patellar tendon autografts versus hamstring autografts for reconstructions of anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2006;332:995–1001. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38784.384109.2F.
    1. Biau DJ, Tournoux C, Katsahian S, Schranz PJ, Nizard RS. ACL reconstructions. Clini Orthop Relat R. 2007;458:180–187.
    1. Goldblatt JP, Fitzsimmons SE, Balk E, Richmond JC. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis of patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(7):791–803. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.04.107.
    1. Spindler KP, Kuhn JE, Freedman KB, Matthews CE, Dittus RS, Harrel FE. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction autograft choice: bone tendon bone versus hamstring. Am J Sport Med. 2004;32(8):1986–1995. doi: 10.1177/0363546504271211.
    1. Liden M, Ejerhed L, Sernert N, Laxdal G, Kartus J. Patellar tendon or semitendinosus tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized study with a 7-year follow up. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:740–748. doi: 10.1177/0363546506298275.
    1. Maletis GB, Cameron SL, Tengan JJ, Burchette RJ. A prospective randomized study of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of patellar tendon and quadruple-strand semitendinosus/gracilis tendons fixed with bioabsorbable interference screws. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):384–394. doi: 10.1177/0363546506294361.
    1. Sajovic M, Strahovnik A, Komadina R, Dernovsek MZ. The effect of graft choice on functional outcome in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop (SICOT) 2008;32:473–478. doi: 10.1007/s00264-007-0341-x.
    1. Gobbi A, Francisco R. Factor affecting return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon and hamstring graft: a prospective clinical investigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:1021–1028. doi: 10.1007/s00167-006-0050-9.
    1. Harilainen A, Linko E, Sandelin J. Randomized prospective study of ACL reconstruction with interference screw fixation in patellar tendon autografts versus femoral metal plate suspension and tibial post fixation in hamstring tendon autografts: 5-year clinical and radiological follow up results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:517–528. doi: 10.1007/s00167-006-0059-0.
    1. Matsumoto A, Yoshiya S, Muratsu H. A comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone and bone-hamstring tendon-bone autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(2):213–219. doi: 10.1177/0363546505279919.
    1. Prodromos CC, Joyce BT, Shi K, Keller BL. A meta-analysis of stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as a function of hamstring versus patellar tendon graft and fixation type. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(10):1202e1–1202e9. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.08.036.
    1. Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M, Lo Presti M, Giordano G, Iacono F, Neri MP. Prospective and randomized evaluation of ACL reconstruction with three techniques: a clinical and radiographic evaluation at 5 years follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(11):1060–1069. doi: 10.1007/s00167-006-0130-x.
    1. Lee GH, McCulloch P, Cole BJ, Bush-Joseph CA, Bach BR. The incidence of acute patellar tendon harvest complications for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(2):162–166. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.08.020.
    1. Tuman J, Diduch DR, Baumfeld JA, Rubino LJ, Hart JM. Joint infection unique to hamstring tendon harvester used during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(5):618–620. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.033.
    1. Judd D, Bottoni C, Kim D, Burke M, Hooker S. Infections following arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(4):375–384. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.12.002.
    1. Binnet MS, Basarir K. Risk and outcome of infection after different arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(8):862–868. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.02.008.
    1. Almazán A, Miguel A, Odor A, Ibarra JC. Intraoperative incidents and complications in primary arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(11):1211–1217. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.06.019.
    1. Prodomos C, Joyce B, Shi K. A meta-analysis of stability of autografts compared to allografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15:851–856. doi: 10.1007/s00167-007-0328-6.
    1. Prodromos CC, Joyce BT, Shi KS, Keller BL. A meta-analysis of stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as a function of hamstring versus patellar tendon graft and fixation type. Arthoscopy. 2005;21:1202–1208.
    1. Krych AJ, Jackson JD, Hoskin TL, Dahm DL. A meta-analysis of patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(3):292–298. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.08.029.
    1. Centeno JM, Woolf S, Reid JB, Lubowitz JH. Do anterior cruciate ligament allograft culture results correlate with clinical infections? Arthroscopy. 2007;23(10):1100–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.05.006.
    1. Crawford C, Kainer M, Jernigan D, et al. Investigation of postoperative allograft-associated infections in patients who underwent musculoskeletal allograft implantation. CID. 2005;41:195–200. doi: 10.1086/430911.
    1. Pichon Riviere A, Augustovski F, Alcaraz A, et al. Usefulness of synthetic graft in knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Ciudad de Buenos Aires: Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS); 2006.
    1. Muren O, Dahlstedt L, Dalen N. Reconstruction of acute anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a prospective, randomized study of 40 patients with 7-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123:144–147.
    1. Nau T, Lavoie P, Duval N. A new generation of artificial ligaments in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg. 2002;84:356–360. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.84B3.12400.
    1. Gorschewsky O, Klakow A, Riechert K, Pitzl M, Becker R. Clinical comparison of the tutoplast allograft and autologous patellar tendon (bone—patellar tendon—bone) for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: 2- and 6-year results. Am J Sports Med. 2005;8:1202–1209. doi: 10.1177/0363546504271510.
    1. Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M, Boden SD, Bourne RB, Bozic KJ, Jacobs JJ, Zdero R. The evidence-based approach in bringing new orthopaedic devices to market. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(4):1030–1037. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01532.
    1. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2005) Evidence-based guidelines. Position Statement #1163. Feb 2005

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel