Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41179403›Full record

ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025

Allograft vs. autograft for chronic acromioclavicular joint instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and complications.

Sam C J Postma, Eduard P C van Eecke, Bart J A Mertens, Simone Priester-Vink, Derek F van Deurzen, Michel P J van den Bekerom, Simran Grewal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Sam C J PostmaShoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eduard P C van EeckeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopedie Roeselare, Roeselare, Belgium.
Bart J A MertensDepartment of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands.
Simone Priester-VinkDepartment of Research and Epidemiology, Medical Library, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Derek F van DeurzenShoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michel P J van den BekeromShoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Simran GrewalShoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Chronic acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) instability is commonly treated with surgical reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligament using tendon grafts. Both autografts and allografts are widely utilized, with no clear consensus on the superior option. Autografts, such as hamstring tendons, provide favorable outcomes but are associated with donor-site morbidity, whereas allografts offer an alternative without harvesting morbidity but may introduce complications such as osteolysis and immune-mediated tissue rejection. The choice between these grafts remains a topic of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes, complication rates, and donor-site morbidity of autograft vs. allograft tendon augmentation in chronic ACJ instability. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, SportDiscus, and Web of Science until July 3, 2024. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers, with inclusion limited to English, Dutch, French, and German publications. Studies involving adults (≥18 years) with chronic ACJ dislocation (Rockwood type ≥ III) undergoing autograft or allograft reconstruction were included. Exclusion criteria encompassed biomechanical, cadaveric studies, and studies lacking separate outcome reporting for graft types. Data extraction was performed using standardized templates and analyzed with RStudio. Functional, radiological, and complication outcomes were pooled using random-effects models. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results: A total of 42 studies (827 patients) met the inclusion criteria, with 26 included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant-Murley Score, Visual Analog Scale, or Disabilities of the Arm, Hand and Shoulder scores between autografts and allografts ( Conclusion: Both autograft and allograft tendon augmentation provide comparable functional outcomes for chronic ACJ instability. During graft selection, one should consider patient-specific factors, weighing donor-site morbidity against potential allograft-related complications. Further standardized, high-quality research is required to guide optimal treatment selection.

Indexed as

Acromioclavicular jointAllograftAutograftChronicDonor-site morbidityMeta-analysisReconstructionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41179403
PMCPMC12573585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.