ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Allograft to bone-tunnel integration in a canine anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction model: a comparison study of allograft preparation methods.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The procedure of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) allograft preparation can be divided into fresh-frozen method (FF-allograft) or freeze-dried method (FD-allograft). This study aims to biomechanically and histologically compare the graft to bone tunnel integration between the two allografts. In-vitro results indicated that FF-allograft and FD-allograft showed excellent biocompatibility and biomechanics, while FD-allograft showed a denser collagen fiber arrangement than FF-allograft and autograft. Then, in-vivo preformation of the FF-allograft, FD-allograft, and autograft on bone tunnel integration was evaluated via a canine ACL reconstruction model. In-vivo results indicated that no signs of infection or osteoarthritis were shown in the femur-graft-tibia complexes, but more vascularity and synovitis formed around the implanted FF-allograft. Micro-computed tomography showed that peri-graft bone in the FF-allograft group was significantly increased and remodeled compared with the FD-allograft group; Histologically, the FF-allograft group exhibited similar graft-bone tunnel healing to the FD-allograft group. Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining showed significantly more osteoclasts presented in the FD-allograft group compared to the FF-allograft group. Meanwhile, a significantly higher failure load was shown in the FF-allograft group when compared with the FD-allograft group (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the FF-allograft integrated more firmly into the bone tunnel than the FD-allograft when used in ACL reconstruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.