No difference in postoperative efficacy and safety between autograft and allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study in 112 patients.

Background: Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is the best treatment choice for returning to pre-injury activities following ACL rupture. Although allografts are considered an effective alternative to autografts, there is still controversy regarding the safety and effectiveness of this procedure, especially concerning the risk of postoperative infection and disease transmission. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy outcomes and safety between allografts and autografts in primary ACLR. Methods: The retrospective analysis involved 112 patients (58 patients received allogeneic tendons and 54 patients received autologous hamstring tendons) who underwent primary ACLR. All patients were followed up and evaluated on admission and at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The efficacy outcome of the ACLR was evaluated by International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and physical examinations (Lachman test, anterior drawer test, and pivot shift test). The safety outcome of allografts and autografts was compared by investigating the occurrence of postoperative complications, including postoperative inflammation and potential disease transmission. The benefits of each operation for surgeons and patients were also analyzed, including the length of surgical incision and operative time. Results: There was no significant difference in the demographic and clinical characteristics between the allograft and autograft groups. The two cohorts proved to be similar in terms of the acute or chronic nature of the cruciate ligament and the incidence of concomitant meniscal surgery. Arthroscopic ACLR was performed in all patients. The physical examinations were all positive before surgery and negative immediately after the operation. The KT-1000 and IKDC scores of two groups significantly decreased than pre-operative ones (P<0.05), but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05). At final follow-up, all patients had returned to their pre-injury activities. Allografts showed no increased risk for postoperative infection or potential disease transmission relative to autografts. Conclusions: The outcomes of reconstructed ACL with allografts were similar to those of autographs. Moreover, the safety of allografts showed to be comparable to that of autografts, especially concerning postoperative infection and disease transmission. Therefore, the surgical option should be chosen wisely according to the patient's condition.