Autograft and Nonirradiated Allograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Demonstrate Similar Clinical Outcomes and Graft Failure Rates: An Updated Systematic Review
Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation, ISSN: 2666-061X, Vol: 4, Issue: 4, Page: e1513-e1521
2022
- 11Citations
- 30Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations11
- Citation Indexes11
- 11
- CrossRef8
- Captures30
- Readers30
- 30
Review Description
To perform an updated systematic review comparing the clinical outcomes of autograft versus nonirradiated allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify comparative studies directly comparing outcomes of primary ACLR with autograft versus nonirradiated allograft with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The search terms used were: “anterior cruciate ligament” AND autograft AND allograft AND (irradiation OR non-irradiated). Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rates, the Objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, anteroposterior laxity, and patient-reported outcomes (Subjective IKDC score, the visual analog scale [VAS], the Cincinnati Knee Rating System, Lysholm, and Tegner scores). Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool for non-randomized and randomized studies, respectively. Sixteen studies (3 Level I, 7 Level II, 6 Level III) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 15,502 patients undergoing ACLR with autograft and 1,577 with nonirradiated allograft. The average follow-up ranged from 24.0 to 132.0 months. Graft failure ranged from 0% to 9.4% of patients in the autograft group and 0% to 26.5% in the allograft group. Two studies showed greater failure rates among younger patients in the allograft group. There were no significant differences between the Objective IKDC score, anteroposterior laxity, or patient-reported outcomes between the groups within any of the included studies ( P >.05). Autograft and nonirradiated allograft for primary ACLR demonstrate similar patient-reported outcomes and graft failure rates. III, systematic review of level I-III studies.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X22000505; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.04.008; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85132197993&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36033181; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666061X22000505; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.04.008
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know