Search

Objectives: Patients with recurrent instability after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction often present with enlarged or misplaced tunnels and bone grafting is required prior to the actual revision reconstruction. Autologous bone grafting features limited quantity and donor site morbidity. These problems may be eliminated utilizing cancellous bone allografts, but their efficiency and reliability have not been investigated systematically. The aim of the present study was to compare tunnel filling rates attained by utilizing either allogenic or autologous cancellous bone grafts. Materials and methods: A total of 103 consecutive patients were enrolled retrospectively. All patients suffered from recurrent instability and underwent either allogenic or autologous cancellous bone grafting. Computed tomography (CT) was carried out before and after the bone grafting procedure. Based on preoperative CT scans, positioning and maximum diameter of the femoral and tibial tunnels were determined. Tunnel filling rates were calculated as a ratio of pre- and postoperative tunnel volumes. Primary outcome was the tibial tunnel filling rate. Femoral filling rates and density of the grafted bone were assessed secondarily. Results: Preoperative CT scans revealed no significant differences between the two groups regarding distribution of misplacement and widening of the femoral or tibial tunnel. Postoperative CT scans were conducted after an interval of 5.2 months. Tunnel filling rates of 74.5% (± 14.3) femoral and 85.3% (± 10.3) tibial were achieved in the allogenic compared to 74.3% (± 15.9) femoral and 84.9% (± 9.4) tibial in the autologous group. With p values of 0.85 at the femur and 0.83 at the tibia, there were no significant differences between the groups. The density of the grafted bone revealed significantly higher values in the allogenic group. Conclusions: Utilizing cancellous bone allografts in two-staged revision ACL surgery provides for sufficient and reproducible filling of enlarged or misplaced tunnels. The filling rates are comparable to those achieved with autologous bone grafting. Advantages of allografts are the unrestricted quantity and the absence of any harvesting procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]