AJSM Click here for details!
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
First published on February 1, 2006, doi:10.1177/0363546505284846
This version was published on July 1, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/7/1084    most recent
0363546505284846v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Glenn, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Spindler, K. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Glenn, R. E., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Spindler, K. P.
Related Collections
Right arrow Animal studies
Right arrow Biomechanics
Right arrow Histology
Right arrow Imaging Studies
Right arrow Chondral/cartilage
Right arrow Knee
The American Journal of Sports Medicine 34:1084-1093 (2006)
© 2006 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine

Comparison of Fresh Osteochondral Autografts and Allografts

A Canine Model

R. Edward Glenn, Jr, MD*, Eric C. McCarty, MD{dagger}, Hollis G. Potter, MD{ddagger}, Saul F. Juliao, MS§, Jeffrey D. Gordon, MS* and Kurt P. Spindler, MD*,||

From the * Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt Sports Medicine Center, Nashville, Tennessee, the {dagger} Department of Orthopaedics, University of Colorado Health Sciences, Denver, Colorado, the {ddagger} Department of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, and § Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

|| Address correspondence to Kurt P. Spindler, MD, Vanderbilt Orthopaedic Institute, Med Center East, South Tower, Suite 4200, Nashville, TN 37232-8774 (e-mail: kurt.spindler{at}vanderbilt.edu).

Background: Osteochondral autografts and allografts have been widely used in the treatment of isolated grade IV articular cartilage lesions of the knee. However, the authors are not aware of any study that has prospectively compared fresh osteochondral autografts to fresh allografts with regard to imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.

Hypothesis: The imaging, biomechanical properties, and histologic appearance of fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft are similar with respect to bony incorporation into host bone, articular cartilage composition, and biomechanical properties.

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Methods: Eighteen adult dogs underwent bilateral knee osteochondral graft implantation after creation of an Outerbridge grade IV cartilage defect. One knee received an autograft, and the contralateral knee received a fresh allograft. Nine dogs were sacrificed at 3 months, and 9 dogs were sacrificed at 6 months. Graft analysis included gross examination, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.

Results: Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated excellent bony incorporation of both autografts and allografts. Biomechanical testing demonstrated no significant difference between autografts versus allografts versus control at 3 or 6 months (P = .36–.91). A post hoc calculation showed 80% power to detect a 30% difference between allograft and control. Histologic examination showed normal cartilage structure for both autografts and allografts.

Conclusion: Fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft tissues are not statistically different with respect to bony incorporation, articular cartilage composition, or biomechanical properties up to 6 months after implantation.

Clinical Relevance: The use of fresh allograft tissue to treat osteochondral defects eliminates morbidity associated with harvesting autograft tissue without compromising the results of the surgical procedure.

Key Words: osteochondral • allograft • autograft • articular cartilage




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
S. D. Cook, S. L. Salkeld, L. P. Patron, E. S. Doughty, and D. G. Jones
The Effect of Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound on Autologous Osteochondral Plugs in a Canine Model
Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 2008; 36(9): 1733 - 1741.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
S. J. Nho, L. F. Foo, D. M. Green, M. K. Shindle, R. F. Warren, T. L. Wickiewicz, H. G. Potter, and R. J. Williams III
Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Evaluation of Patellar Resurfacing With Press-Fit Osteochondral Autograft Plugs
Am. J. Sports Med., June 1, 2008; 36(6): 1101 - 1109.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. K. Shindle, L. F. Foo, B. T. Kelly, A. J. Khanna, B. G. Domb, A. Farber, T. Wanich, and H. G. Potter
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cartilage in the Athlete: Current Techniques and Spectrum of Disease
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 2006; 88(suppl_4): 27 - 46.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.