"Proprietary Processed" Allografts: Clinical Outcomes and Biomechanical Properties in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The processing of allograft tissues in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction continues to be controversial. While high-dose irradiation of grafts has received scrutiny for high failure rates, lower dose irradiation and "proprietary-based" nonirradiated sterilization techniques have become increasingly popular, with little in the literature to evaluate their outcomes. Recent studies have suggested that the specifics of allograft processing techniques may be a risk factor for higher failure rates. PURPOSE: To assess these proprietary processes and their clinical outcomes and biomechanical properties. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases. English-language studies were identified with the following search terms: "allograft ACL reconstruction" (title/abstract), "novel allograft processing" (title/abstract), "allograft anterior cruciate ligament" (title/abstract), "anterior cruciate ligament allograft processing" (title/abstract), or "biomechanical properties anterior cruciate ligament allograft" (title/abstract). Duplicate studies, studies not providing the allograft processing technique, and those not containing the outcomes of interest were excluded. Outcomes of interest included outcome scores, complication and failure rates, and biomechanical properties of the processed allografts. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (13 clinical, 11 biomechanical) met inclusion criteria for review. No demonstrable difference in patient-reported outcomes was appreciated between the processing techniques, with the exception of the Tutoplast process. The clinical failure rate of the Tutoplast process was unacceptably high (45% at 6 years), but no other difference was found between other processing techniques (BioCleanse: 5.4%; AlloTrue: 5.7%; MTF: 6.7%). Several studies did show an increased failure rate, but these studies either combined processing techniques or failed to delineate enough detail to allow a specific comparison for this study. The biomechanical studies showed overall maintenance of satisfactory biomechanical properties throughout multiple testing modes with normalization to the percentage of control specimens. CONCLUSION: A comparison of proprietary allograft processing techniques is difficult because of the variability and lack of specificity of reporting in the current literature. Among the available literature, except for the Tutoplast process, no notable differences were found in the clinical outcomes or biomechanical properties. Future study with a longer follow-up is necessary to determine the role and limitations of these grafts in the clinical setting.

Total Knee Arthroplasty Performed With Long-Acting Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Femoral Nerve Catheter.

Inadequate pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can interfere with participation in and progression of physical rehabilitation, and thereby prolong hospital stay, and increase costs and overall dissatisfaction with the procedure. At our institution, TKA traditionally has been performed with femoral nerve catheters (FNCs) for postoperative pain control. We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal, repeated -measures study to compare FNC and long-acting liposomal bupivacaine (LALB) with respect to pain control, range of motion, ability to ambulate, and hospital length of stay. Twenty-three patients underwent separately staged bilateral TKAs, the first with FNC and the second with periarticular injection of LALB. Statistically significant differences favoring LALB over FNC were found for hospital length of stay (P < .01), per-attempt walking distance during hospitalization (P < .01), total range of motion (extension plus flexion) at 3-week follow-up (P = .02), and total morphine-equivalent dose during hospitalization (P = .02). Our results showed that, compared with patients who received FNC, patients who received LALB had comparable pain control, improved knee range of motion, and shorter hospital stays. Additional clinical studies are needed to better determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LALB and other long-acting local anesthetic formulations.