Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The aim of this study is to investigate the differences in graft failure between patients that underwent ACL reconstruction using allograft tendons and patients that underwent ACL reconstruction using autograft tendons in patients older than 40 y.o. and after at least 2 years of follow-up. The hypothesis of the study is that there will be a difference in graft failure and patient reported functional outcomes between allograft and autograft ACL reconstruction.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allograft | Patients aged ≥ 40 y.o. that underwent ACL reconstruction using allograft tendons |
| |
| Autograft | Patients aged ≥ 40 y.o. that underwent ACL reconstruction using autograft tendons |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACL reconstruction | Procedure | Patients that underwent ACL reconstruction using either allograft or autograft tendons, at least 2 years of follow-up, gender male and female, no comorbidities |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| To compare the difference in graft failure between allograft vs autograft ACL reconstruction | Clinical evaluation measuring the percentage in graft failure between allograft and autograft ACL reconstruction | from 2 years after surgical procedure |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| To assess the difference in patient reported outcome between allograft vs autograft ACL reconstruction | Clinical evaluation collecting Tegner Lysholm Score (max, 100 - min. 0) (100 = no disability; 0= maximum siability) | from 2 years after surgical procedure |
| To assess the difference in patient reported outcome between allograft vs autograft ACL reconstruction |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Patients that underwent ACL reconstruction using either allograft or autograft tendons, at least 2 years of follow-up, gender male and female, no comorbidities.
Group 1 are patients aged ≥ 40 y.o. that underwent ACL reconstruction using allograft tendons.
Group 2 are patients aged ≥ 40 y.o. that underwent ACL reconstruction using autograft tendons.
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele | Milan | Milano | 20132 | Italy |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16009990 | Background | Barrett G, Stokes D, White M. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients older than 40 years: allograft versus autograft patellar tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2005 Oct;33(10):1505-12. doi: 10.1177/0363546504274202. Epub 2005 Jul 11. | |
| 18657740 | Background | Seng K, Appleby D, Lubowitz JH. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament rupture in patients aged 40 years or older: an expected-value decision analysis. Arthroscopy. 2008 Aug;24(8):914-20. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.01.021. Epub 2008 Apr 18. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000070598 | Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007718 | Knee Injuries |
| D007869 | Leg Injuries |
| D014947 | Wounds and Injuries |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Clinical evaluation collecting the Visual Analogue Scale for Pain (VAS) (min.0 - max. 10) (0= no pain; 100 maximum pain) |
| from 2 years after surgical procedure |
| To assess the difference in patient reported outcome between allograft vs autograft ACL reconstruction | Clinical evaluation collecting the International Knee Document Comitee Score (IKDC) (min. 0 - max. 100) (0= lowest level of function; 100= highest level of fuction) | from 2 years after surgical procedure |
| 12368781 | Background | Kuechle DK, Pearson SE, Beach WR, Freeman EL, Pawlowski DF, Whipple TL, Caspari Dagger RB, Meyers JF. Allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients over 40 years of age. Arthroscopy. 2002 Oct;18(8):845-53. doi: 10.1053/jars.2002.36140. |
| 27018510 | Background | Budny J, Fox J, Rauh M, Fineberg M. Emerging Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. J Knee Surg. 2017 Jan;30(1):63-69. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1579788. Epub 2016 Mar 28. |
| 27385681 | Background | Tibor L, Chan PH, Funahashi TT, Wyatt R, Maletis GB, Inacio MC. Surgical Technique Trends in Primary ACL Reconstruction from 2007 to 2014. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Jul 6;98(13):1079-89. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00881. |
| 27327925 | Background | Salminen M, Kraeutler MJ, Freedman KB, Tucker BS, Salvo JP, Ciccotti MG, Cohen SB. Choosing a Graft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Surgeon Influence Reigns Supreme. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016 May-Jun;45(4):E192-7. |
| 26427630 | Background | Joyce CD, Randall KL, Mariscalco MW, Magnussen RA, Flanigan DC. Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Versus Soft-Tissue Allograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2016 Feb;32(2):394-402. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.08.003. Epub 2015 Sep 28. |
| 25899429 | Background | Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Reinke EK, Huston LJ; MOON Consortium; Spindler KP. Risk Factors and Predictors of Subsequent ACL Injury in Either Knee After ACL Reconstruction: Prospective Analysis of 2488 Primary ACL Reconstructions From the MOON Cohort. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jul;43(7):1583-90. doi: 10.1177/0363546515578836. Epub 2015 Apr 21. |