The use of allograft tissue in posterior cruciate, collateral and multi-ligament knee reconstruction
- 292 Downloads
Currently both autograft and allograft tissues are available for reconstruction of posterior cruciate, collateral and multi-ligament knee injuries. Decision-making is based on a complex interplay between anatomical structures, functional bundles and varying biomechanical requirements. Despite theoretically better biological healing and reduced risk of disease transmission autografts are associated with donor site morbidity as well as being limited by size and quantity. The use of allografts eliminates donor-site morbidity but raises cost and issues of clinical effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to review current concepts and evidence for the use of allografts in primary posterior cruciate, collateral and multi-ligament reconstructions.
A narrative review of the relevant literature was conducted for PCL, collateral ligament and multi-ligament knee reconstruction. Studies were identified using a targeted and systematic search with focus on recent comparative studies and all clinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The rationale and principles of management underpinning the role of allograft tissue were identified and the clinical and functional outcomes were analysed. Finally, the position of postoperative physiotherapy and rehabilitation was identified.
The review demonstrated paucity in high quality and up-to-date results addressing the issue especially on collaterals and multi-ligament reconstructions. There was no significant evidence of superiority of a graft type over another for PCL reconstruction. Contemporary principles in the management of posterolateral corner, MCL and multi-ligament injuries support the use of allograft tissue.
The present review demonstrates equivalent clinical results with the use of autografts or allografts. It remains, however, difficult to generate a conclusive evidence-based approach due to the paucity of high-level research. When confronted by the need for combined reconstructions with multiple grafts, preservation of synergistic muscles, and adapted postoperative rehabilitation; the current evidence does offer support for the use of allograft tissue.
Level of evidence
KeywordsPosterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Collateral ligaments Multiligaments Allografts Graft choice Decision-making Autografts
No funding required or obtained.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Ethical approval not required for this review of literature.
- 14.Chahla J, Murray IR, Robinson J, Lagae K, Margheritini F, Fritsch B et al (2018) Posterolateral corner of the knee: an expert consensus statement on diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5260-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Foster TE, Wolfe BL, Ryan S, Silvestri L, Kaye EK (2010) 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 38:189–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Herbort M, Michel P, Raschke MJ, Vogel N, Schulze M, Zoll A et al (2017) Should the ipsilateral hamstrings be used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the case of medial collateral ligament insufficiency? Biomechanical investigation regarding dynamic stabilization of the medial compartment by the hamstring muscles. Am J Sports Med 45:819–825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 55.Kremen TJ, Polakof LS, Rajaee SS, Nelson TJ, Metzger MF (2018) The effect of hamstring tendon autograft harvest on the restoration of knee stability in the setting of concurrent anterior cruciate ligament and medial collateral ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 46:163–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 67.Lenschow S, Zantop T, Weimann A, Lemburg T, Raschke M, Strobel M et al (2006) Joint kinematics and in situ forces after single bundle PCL reconstruction: a graft placed at the center of the femoral attachment does not restore normal posterior laxity. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126:253–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 79.Liu X, Feng H, Zhang H, Hong L, Wang XS, Zhang J et al (2013) Surgical treatment of subacute and chronic valgus instability in multiligament-injured knees with superficial medial collateral ligament reconstruction using Achilles allografts: a quantitative analysis with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 41:1044–1050CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 90.Miyasaka K, Daniel D, Stone M, Hirschman P (1991) The incidence of knee ligament injuries in the general population. Am J Knee Surg 4:43–48Google Scholar
- 113.Spiridonov SI, Slinkard NJ, LaPrade RF (2011) Isolated and combined grade-III posterior cruciate ligament tears treated with double-bundle reconstruction with use of endoscopically placed femoral tunnels and grafts: operative technique and clinical outcomes. J Bone Jt Surg Am 93:1773–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 124.Wang HD, Zhang H, Wang TR, Zhang WF, Wang FS, Zhang YZ (2018) Comparison of clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft versus soft-tissue allograft: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Surg 56:174–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 128.Wickiewicz T (2006) Management of multiligament injuries. Orthopaedics today: a comprehensive CME course, New YorkGoogle Scholar