Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 4, 2025
Athymic Rat Model for Evaluation of Engineered Anterior Cruciate Ligament Grafts
Published on: March 26, 2015
No Difference in Most Reported Outcome Measures for Allograft Versus Autograft for Hip Labral Reconstruction: A
Muzammil Akhtar1, Daniel Razick2, Osamah Baig3
1California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, California, U.S.A..
Purpose:
To systematically review studies comparing outcomes of allograft versus autograft for hip labral reconstruction.
Methods:
A systematic review following guidelines established by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) was performed in 3 databases using the terms "labrum," "hip," "acetabulum," "reconstruction," "augmentation," "allograft," and "autograft." Data on study characteristics, patient demographic characteristics, follow-up time, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), rates of revision surgery, and rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were collected.
Results:
Three studies were included, with Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scores ranging from 17 to 23. Among 92 patients receiving allografts, the mean ages ranged from 30.6 to 34.8 years; mean follow-up times, from 34.6 to 66.1 months; revision rates, from 0% to 23.6%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 20%. Among 185 patients receiving autografts, the mean ages ranged from 34.6 to 35.9 years; mean follow-up times, from 32.7 to 80.8 months; revision rates, from 0% to 7.3%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 6.7%. One study reported significantly higher revision rates in the allograft group. All studies reported no statistically significant differences in postoperative PROs, and all postoperative PROs significantly improved compared with preoperative PROs. Rates of achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state, reported by 1 study, were statistically similar between the 2 groups and ranged from 55.6% to 100% for the allograft group and from 53.8% to 84.6% for the autograft group.
Conclusions:
There were no significant differences between allograft and autograft patients in terms of postoperative PROs; however, all PRO measures were slightly higher in allograft patients. Both revision and conversion-to-THA rates were higher in allograft patients in 2 studies, with the level of significance being reached in terms of revision in 1 study. The third study reported zero revisions and conversions to THA in allograft and autograft patients.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.
More Related Videos
13:16Computed Tomography and Optical Imaging of Osteogenesis-angiogenesis Coupling to Assess Integration of Cranial Bone Autografts and Allografts
Published on: December 22, 2015
09:51The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022