Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Jan;32(1):153-63.e18.
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.027. Epub 2015 Oct 21.

Autograft Versus Allograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Review of Overlapping Systematic Reviews

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Autograft Versus Allograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Review of Overlapping Systematic Reviews

Chao Zeng et al. Arthroscopy. 2016 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare autograft with allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a systematic review of overlapping systematic reviews.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 28, 2014, to identify Level I and II evidence RCTs with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and systematic reviews that compared autograft with allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Both objective and subjective outcomes with respect to knee stability and function were meta-analyzed and summarized. The overall risk ratio (RR) or the weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated using either a fixed- or random-effects model. The quality of evidence of the systematic review of overlapping systematic reviews was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system.

Results: Nine RCTs and 10 systematic reviews were included. In general, statistically significant differences in favor of autograft were observed for clinical failure (RR, 0.47; P = .0007), the Lachman test (RR, 1.18; P = .03), the instrumented laxity test (WMD, -0.88; P = .004), and the Tegner score (WMD, 0.36; P = .004). When subgroup analyses were conducted based on whether irradiation was used, autograft achieved better clinical outcomes than irradiated allograft in terms of the Lysholm score, clinical failure, the pivot-shift test, the Lachman test, the instrumented laxity test, and the Tegner score. In addition, there were no significant differences between the autograft and nonirradiated allograft groups for all 8 indices. The final results of this systematic review of overlapping systematic reviews were in accordance with our meta-analysis.

Conclusions: Autograft had greater advantages than irradiated allograft with respect to function and stability, whereas there were no significant differences between autograft and nonirradiated allograft.

Level of evidence: Level IV, meta-analysis of Level II, III, and IV studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

LinkOut - more resources