Long-term outcomes after native tissue vs. biological graft-augmented repair in the posterior compartment.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to compare the outcomes of native tissue vs. biological graft-augmented repair in the posterior compartment. We hypothesized that the addition of graft would result in superior anatomic and functional outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of posterior repairs between 2001 and 2008 was performed to compare the anatomic and functional outcomes between native tissue and graft-augmented techniques. Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests were used. Power calculation determined that 32 subjects were needed in each group. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four native tissue and 69 graft-augmented repairs were performed with a median follow-up of 35.8 months (range, 6 to 157 months). Anatomic success was similar for native tissue vs. graft (Bp < -1, 86% vs. 80% and Bp ≤ 0, 97% vs. 97%; all p > 0.05). Postoperative splinting and incomplete evacuation was greater in the graft group (splinting, 85% vs. 68%; p = 0.04 and incomplete evacuation, 85% vs. 64%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Long-term success of posterior repair is high. Graft augmentation does not appear to improve anatomic or functional outcomes.