What Factors Influence the Biomechanical Properties of Allograft Tissue for ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review
Allograft tissue is used in 22% to 42% of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. Clinical outcomes have been inconsistent with allograft tissue, with some series reporting no differences in outcomes and others reporting increased risk of failure. There are numerous variations in processing and preparation that may influence the eventual performance of allograft tissue in ACL reconstruction. We sought to perform a systematic review to summarize the factors that affect the biomechanical properties of allograft tissue for use in ACL reconstruction. Many factors might impact the biomechanical properties of allograft tissue, and these should be understood when considering using allograft tissue or when reporting outcomes from allograft reconstruction.
What factors affect the biomechanical properties of allograft tissue used for ACL reconstruction?
We performed a systematic review to identify studies on factors that influence the biomechanical properties of allograft tissue through PubMed and SCOPUS databases. We included cadaveric and animal studies that reported on results of biomechanical testing, whereas studies on fixation, histologic evaluation, and clinical outcomes were excluded. There were 319 unique publications identified through the search with 48 identified as relevant to answering the study question. For each study, we recorded the type of tissue tested, parameters investigated, and the effects on biomechanical behavior, including load to failure and stiffness. Primary factors identified to influence allograft tissue properties were graft tissue type, sterilization methods (irradiation and chemical processing), graft preparation, donor parameters, and biologic adjuncts.
Load to failure and graft stiffness varied across different tissue types, with nonlooped tibialis grafts exhibiting the lowest values. Studies on low-dose irradiation showed variable effects, whereas high-dose irradiation consistently produced decreased load to failure and stiffness values. Various chemical sterilization measures were also associated with negative effects on biomechanical properties. Prolonged freezing decreased load to failure, ultimate stress, and ultimate strain. Up to eight freeze-thaw cycles did not lead to differences in biomechanical properties of cadaveric grafts. Regional differences were noted in patellar tendon grafts, with the central third showing the highest load to failure and stiffness. Graft diameter strongly contributed to load-to-failure measurements. Age older than 40 years, and especially older than 65 years, negatively impacted biomechanical properties, whereas gender had minimal effect on the properties of allograft tissue. Biologic adjuncts show potential for improving in vivo properties of allograft tissue.
Future clinical studies on allograft ACL reconstruction should investigate in vivo graft performance with standardized allograft processing and preparation methods that limit the negative effects on the biomechanical properties of tissue. Additionally, biologic adjuncts may improve the biomechanical properties of allograft tissue, although future preclinical and clinical studies are necessary to clarify the role of these treatments.
Based on the findings of this systematic review that emphasize biomechanical properties of ACL allografts, surgeons should favor the use of central third patellar tendon or looped soft tissue grafts, maximize graft cross-sectional area, and favor grafts from donors younger than 40 years of age while avoiding grafts subjected to radiation doses > 20 kGy, chemical processing, or greater than eight freeze-thaw cycles.
- 2.American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Allografts for ACL Reconstruction Survey Report. Rosemont, IL, USA: American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine; 2013.Google Scholar
- 7.Bhatia S, Bell R, Frank RM, Rodeo SA, Bach BR Jr, Cole BJ, Chubinskaya S, Wang VM, Verma NN. Bony incorporation of soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament grafts in an animal model: autograft versus allograft with low-dose gamma irradiation. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:1789–1798.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: unexplained deaths following knee surgery–Minnesota, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50:1080.Google Scholar
- 13.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: allograft-associated bacterial infections–United States, 2002. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2002;51:207–210.Google Scholar
- 21.Delcroix GJ, Kaimrajh DN, Baria D, Cooper S, Reiner T, Latta L, D’Ippolito G, Schiller PC, Temple HT. Histologic, biomechanical, and biological evaluation of fan-folded iliotibial band allografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2013;29:756–765.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Drez DJ Jr, DeLee J, Holden JP, Arnoczky S, Noyes FR, Roberts TS. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts. A biological and biomechanical evaluation in goats. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19:256–263.Google Scholar
- 26.Foster TE, Wolfe BL, Ryan S, Silvestri L, Kaye EK. Does the graft source really matter in the outcome of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? An evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction results: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:189–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Ghodadra NS, Mall NA, Grumet R, Sherman SL, Kirk S, Provencher MT, Bach BR. Interval arthrometric comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft versus allograft: do grafts attenuate within the first year postoperatively? Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:1347–1354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Hoburg A, Keshlaf S, Schmidt T, Smith M, Gohs U, Perka C, Pruss A, Scheffler S. Fractionation of high-dose electron beam irradiation of BPTB grafts provides significantly improved viscoelastic and structural properties compared to standard gamma irradiation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19:1955–1961.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Kaeding CC, Aros B, Pedroza A, Pifel E, Amendola A, Andrish JT, Dunn WR, Marx RG, McCarty EC, Parker RD. Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort. Sports Health. 2011;3:73–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 49.Olsen E. Use of soft tissue allografts in sports medicine. Adv Oper Orthop. 1993;1:111–128.Google Scholar
- 57.Schmidt T, Hoburg A, Broziat C, Smith MD, Gohs U, Pruss A, Scheffler S. Sterilization with electron beam irradiation influences the biomechanical properties and the early remodeling of tendon allografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Cell Tissue Bank. 2012;13:387–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 58.Schwartz HE, Matava MJ, Proch FS, Butler CA, Ratcliffe A, Levy M, Butler DL. The effect of gamma irradiation on anterior cruciate ligament allograft biomechanical and biochemical properties in the caprine model at time zero and at 6 months after surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:1747–1755.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 66.Suto K, Urabe K, Naruse K, Uchida K, Matsuura T, Mikuni-Takagaki Y, Suto M, Nemoto N, Kamiya K, Itoman M. Repeated freeze-thaw cycles reduce the survival rate of osteocytes in bone-tendon constructs without affecting the mechanical properties of tendons. Cell Tissue Bank. 2012;13:71–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 68.Szycher M, Sharma CP. Blood Compatible Materials and Devices: Perspectives Towards the 21 st Century. Lancaster, PA, USA: Technomic Pub Co; 1991.Google Scholar
- 72.Woo SL-Y, Hollis JM, Adams DJ, Lyon RM, Takai S. Tensile properties of the human femur-anterior cruciate ligament-tibia complex: the effects of specimen age and orientation. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19:217–225.Google Scholar