Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34782927›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2022

Different timing in allograft and autograft maturation after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the clinical outcome at mid-long-term follow-up.

Andrea Cusumano, Paolo Capitani, Carmelo Messina, Laura de Girolamo, Marco Viganò, Giovanni Ravasio, Francesca Facchini, Luca Maria Sconfienza, Alberto Zerbi, Herbert Schoenhuber and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Serial change of femoral and tibial tunnel width after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea CusumanoIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Paolo CapitaniDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, ASST GOM Niguarda, Piazza dell'Ospedale Maggiore, 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.
Carmelo MessinaIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Laura de GirolamoIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Marco ViganòIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni RavasioIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Francesca FacchiniIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Luca Maria SconfienzaIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Alberto ZerbiCasa Di Cura La Madonnina, Via Quadronno, 29, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Herbert SchoenhuberIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Roberto PozzoniIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Gabriele ThiébatIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. gthiebat@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3554-2611
Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITCasa di Cura Columbus · ITOspedale Maggiore · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

Ministero della Salute L2022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use of allografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is increasing although they are still supposed to be associated to greater risk of re-rupture due to a slower and less efficient graft maturation. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to compare the graft maturation after ACLR with allograft and autograft by MRI at 6- and 12-month follow-up and integrate these data with the functional and clinical results observed at 6-, 12- and 60-month follow-up.

methodsFifty patients with indication to primary ACLR were randomly and equally divided into hamstring autograft or allograft tendon groups. The graft maturation was measured at 6- and 12-month follow-up by the SNQ score and other radiological parameters on MRI scans. Clinical and functional recovery was evaluated by Lysholm score, Visual Analogues Scale, Tegner activity scale and modified Cincinnati knee rating system at 6, 12 and 60 months after surgery to estimate the predictive value of the radiological parameters for clinical outcomes. Return-to-sport (ACL-RSI) was measured 60 months after surgery.

resultsThree patients had retear of the neo-ligament (two from Auto group and one from Allo group). All the clinical/functional parameters significantly improved over time, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. At 6 months, the SNQ value was significantly higher in the Auto than in the Allo group (12.9 vs 7.9, p = 0.038), but at 12 months they were comparable (9.8 vs 10.4). The 6-month SNQ values did not correlate with the clinical scores, whereas the 12-month SNQ values significantly correlated with the Cincinnati score, Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale collected at 60-month follow-up.

conclusionNo clinical or functional differences have been found between the two treatment groups, supporting the suitability of using allograft in primary ACLR, when available. The results at MRI scans showed a different graft maturation trend in the two groups, with allografts being more reactive in the first 6 months. MRI together with the subjective evaluation allows to evaluate objectively the status of the neo-ligamentization process and therefore helps the surgeon to dictate the individual time for return-to-sport. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionHamstring TendonsAllograftsAutograftsFollow-Up StudiesHumansProspective StudiesTransplantation, AutologousACLAllograftAnterior cruciate ligamentAutograftGraft MaturationMRIReconstructionSNQ

Identifiers

PMID34782927
PMCPMC8592808
OpenAlexW3214452245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.