Autograft versus non-irradiated allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction:a meta-analysis / 中国组织工程研究

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament has become the gold-standard treatment for an anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Despite the popularity of the procedure, there remains a considerable amount of controversies over whether an autograft or anal ograft should be used for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. OBJECTIVE:To compare the clinical outcomes of al ograft and autograft in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. METHODS:Randomized control ed trials concerning autograft versus non-irradiated al ograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were identified from the PubMed/Medline database conducted up to July 12, 2014. These studies were selected independently by two reviewers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.2 software. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:A total of 6 randomized control ed trials consisting of 858 cases were included, 441 cases in autograft group and 417 cases in non-irradiated al ograft. The results of the meta-analysis indicate no significant difference between autografts and non-irradiated al ografts in overal IKDC [relative risk (RR)=1.02, 95%confidence interval (CI) (0.99 to 1.06), P=0.21], degree of laxity [mean difference (MD)=-0.13, 95%CI (-0.29 to-0.02), P=0.09], Lachman test [RR=1.04, 95%CI (0.95 to 1.13), P=0.37], pivot shift test [RR=1.00, 95%CI (0.95 to 1.05), P=0.96], one-leg hop test [RR=1.01, 95%CI (0.96 to 1.06), P=0.77], Lysholm score [MD=-0.64, 95%CI (-1.45 to 0.17), P=0.12], Tegner score [MD=0.16, 95%CI (-0.16 to 0.47), P=0.34] and rate of postoperative complications [RR=1.42, 95%CI (0.67 to 3.04), P=0.36]. Therefore, in the meta-analysis, there is no significant difference between autograft and non-irradiated al ograft in clinical outcomes. However due to the limitations of our study, further work is needed to determine this conclusion.