Cited by 111Knee injuries and reconstruction techniquesTendon Structure and TreatmentFoot and Ankle Surgery

Clinical Comparison of the Tutoplast Allograft and Autologous Patellar Tendon (Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone) for the Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament: 2- and 6-Year Results

Gorschewsky, Ottmar, Klakow, Andreas, Riechert, Kathrin, Pitzl, Martin, Becker, Roland·2005·The American Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Background: The use of an allograft as a suitable transplant is still open to debate, in terms of donor morbidity, implantation reaction, and long-term results, as well as the risk of disease transmission. Hypothesis: The clinical results 2 and 6 years after implantation of a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft (Tutoplast) and bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft show no significant difference in relation to stability, function, and rate of rupture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Method: Between 1995 and 1998, 268 patients with anterior cruciate ligament ruptures were surgically treated: 132 patients received a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft implantation and 136 patients a bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. The results were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee, Noyes, and Lysholm scores. Results: There were 201 patients assessable after 2 years and 186 patients after 6 years. Ruptures of the implants in the allo-graft group occurred in 20 patients (20.6%) within 2 years and in 38 patients (44.7%) after 6 years. In the autograft group, transplants ruptured in 5 patients (4.8%) after 2 years and in 6 patients (5.9%) after 6 years. Conclusion: Based on the data, it would appear that the regular use of bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts, particularly for physically active patients, is unsuitable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0363546504271510

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ethanol-based decellularization methods have drawbacks including tissue fixation, damage to ECM ultrastructure, and precipitation of cellular proteins.

    “However, ethanol-based decellularization methods have drawbacks, including tissue fixation, damage to the ECM ultrastructure, and the precipitation of cellular proteins [104,112,113].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 111

Authors
Gorschewsky, O., Klakow, A., Riechert, K., Pitzl, M., & Becker, R.
Affiliations
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Gorschewsky, Ottmar
Venue
The American Journal of Sports Medicine
Published
2005-08
Volume
33
Issue
8
Pages
1202-1209
ISSN
  • 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3365
OpenAlex
W1987716790
Cited by
111
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Tendon Structure and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Foot and Ankle Surgery
Keywords
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft, graft rupture, graft stability, donor morbidity, disease transmission risk, Lysholm score, physically active patients
MeSH terms
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries, Adult, Female, Humans, Knee Injuries, Length of Stay, Male, Rupture, Sterilization, Tendons, Transplantation, Autologous, Transplantation, Homologous, Anterior Cruciate Ligament, Treatment Outcome, Plastic Surgery Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review