194 / 245
194
· DOS Abstracts
Allograft usage results in higher re-revision
rate for revision anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction
Kåre Amtoft Nissen, Torsten Grønbech Nielsen, Martin Lind
Department of Orthopedics, Aarhus University Hospital
Background:
Allograft (AL) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
(ACL-R) can result in increased failure rates due to inferior biomechanical prop-
erties compared to autograft (AU) for primary ACL-R. AL is primarily used for
revision ACL-R and the outcome of AL usage is poorly investigated. The Danish
ACL Reconstruction Registry (DKRR) has monitored the development in ACL
reconstructions since 2005.
Purpose / Aim of Study:
This registry study compares clinical outcomes and
re-revision rates for revision ACL-R using AL or AU.
Materials and Methods:
1619 revisions ACL-R were identified in the DKRR.
These were 1315 AU procedures and 221 AL procedures. Clinical outcome after
1 year was reported using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score
(KOOS), as well as Tegner function score (TFC) and objective knee stability
(OKS) measurement using instrumented sagittal knee laxity side to side differ-
ence. Failure was determined as re-revision after minimum two years follow-up.
Findings / Results:
At one-year follow-up the KOOS subscores for (symp-
toms, pain, ADL, Sport, QOL) were 67, 76, 84, 49, 46 for AL and 67, 78, 84,
51, 48 for AU with no difference between groups. OKS was 1,9±2mm for AL
and 1,7±1,9mm for AU. The re-revision rate was significantly higher for AL of
12,7% compared to 5,4% for AU.
Conclusions:
In this observational population-based study the re-revision rate
was 2,3 times higher for AL compared to AU. However, subjective clinical out-
come and knee stability were not inferior for AL patients, these results might
indicate that AU is a safer graft choice for revision ACL-R.
No conflicts of interest reported
145.