Search

Purpose: To compare the results and outcome of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using autogenous hamstring tendon versus fresh-frozen allograft anterior tibialis tendon., Methods: A prospective randomized study was conducted from September 2002 to October 2006. We randomized 147 patients to undergo ACL reconstruction with either autogenous hamstring or fresh-frozen allograft anterior tibialis tendon. Of these patients, 102 (69%) completed a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. There were 54 patients in the hamstring group (73% of those originally enrolled in the group) and 48 patients in the allograft group (66%). All patients underwent standardized subjective and objective evaluation with functional outcome assessments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC]), and standardized radiographs were also obtained., Results: The mean age was 32.0 years for the autograft group and 33.3 years for the allograft group. There was no difference in stability between the 2 groups (P > .05). The mean IKDC subjective score was 91.0 for the autograft group and 90.9 for the allograft group (P > .05). The functional IKDC scores for the autograft group were normal in 46 patients (85%), nearly normal in 7 patients (13%), and severely abnormal in 1 patient. For the allograft group, the functional IKDC scores were normal in 43 patients (90%) and nearly normal in 5 (10%) (P > .05). There were 4 reoperations in the allograft group and 3 reoperations in the autograft group. No patient underwent revision ACL surgery or planned to undergo revision surgery because of instability in either group during the study period despite the 1 patient in the autograft group with a pivot shift and a maximum manual KT measurement (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) of 5 mm., Conclusions: The use of fresh-frozen anterior tibialis allograft (non-treated) for ACL reconstruction produced similar subjective and functional outcomes at 24 months' minimal follow-up compared with patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with autograft hamstring tendon., Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective comparative study., (Copyright © 2012 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)