HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 33/8/1202    most recent 0363546504271510v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gorschewsky, O. Articles by Becker, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gorschewsky, O. Articles by Becker, R. Related Collections Reconstruction

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

Ottmar Gorschewsky, MD^*,, Andreas Klakow, MD, Kathrin Riechert, MD, Martin Pitzl, MD and Roland Becker, MD

From Sportorthopädie Bern, Bern, Switzerland, and the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany

^* Address correspondence to Ottmar Gorschewsky, MD, Sportorthopädie Bern, Klinik Sonnenhof, Buchserstrasse 30, CH-3006, Bern, Switzerland (e-mail: ottmargorschewsky{at}sonnenhof.ch).

Background: The use of an allograft as a suitable transplant is still open to debate, in terms of donor morbidity, implantation reaction, and long-term results, as well as the risk of disease transmission.

Hypothesis: The clinical results 2 and 6 years after implantation of a bone–patellar tendon–bone allograft (Tutoplast) and bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft show no significant difference in relation to stability, function, and rate of rupture.

Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Method: Between 1995 and 1998, 268 patients with anterior cruciate ligament ruptures were surgically treated: 132 patients received a bone–patellar tendon–bone allograft implantation and 136 patients a bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft. The results were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee, Noyes, and Lysholm scores.

Results: There were 201 patients assessable after 2 years and 186 patients after 6 years. Ruptures of the implants in the allograft group occurred in 20 patients (20.6%) within 2 years and in 38 patients (44.7%) after 6 years. In the autograft group, transplants ruptured in 5 patients (4.8%) after 2 years and in 6 patients (5.9%) after 6 years.

Conclusion: Based on the data, it would appear that the regular use of bone–patellar tendon–bone allografts, particularly for physically active patients, is unsuitable.

Key Words: anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture • surgical maintenance • bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) allograft • bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Schimizzi, M. Wedemeyer, T. Odell, W. Thomas, A. T. Mahar, and R. Pedowitz Effects of a Novel Sterilization Process on Soft Tissue Mechanical Properties for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Allografts Am. J. Sports Med., April 1, 2007; 35(4): 612 - 616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]