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
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Liver tissue engineering using decellularized scaffolds: Current progress, challenges, and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [112]
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
- ORCID
- Becker, Roland
- Venue
- The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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