Background: While there is extensive literature on the use of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there is limited clinical evidence to guide the surgeon in choice of allograft tissue type. Purpose: To assess the revision rate after primary ACL reconstruction with allograft and to compare revision rates based on allograft tissue type and characteristics. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent primary allograft ACL reconstructions at a single academic institution between 2015 and 2019 and who had minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Exclusion criteria were missing surgical or allograft tissue type data. Demographics, operative details, and subsequent surgical procedures were collected. Allograft details included graft tissue type (Achilles, bone-patellar tendon-bone [BTB], tibialis anterior or posterior, semitendinosus, unspecified soft tissue), allograft category (all-soft tissue vs bone block), donor age, irradiation duration and intensity, and chemical cleansing process. Revision rates were calculated and compared by allograft characteristics. Results: Included were 418 patients (age, 39 ± 12 years; body mass index, 30 ± 9 kg/m2). The revision rate was 3% (11/418) at a mean follow-up of 4.9 ± 1.4 years. There were no differences in revision rate according to allograft tissue type across Achilles tendon (3%; 3/95), BTB (5%; 3/58), tibialis anterior or posterior (3%; 5/162), semitendinosus (0%; 0/46), or unspecified soft tissue (0%; 0/57) (P = .35). There was no difference in revision rate between all-soft tissue versus bone block allograft (6/283 [2%] vs 5/135 [4%], respectively; P = .34). Of the 51% of grafts with irradiation data, all grafts were irradiated, with levels varying from 1.5 to 2.7 Mrad and 82% of grafts having levels of <2.0 Mrad. There was no difference in revision rate between the low-dose and medium-to high-dose irradiation cohorts (4% vs 6%, respectively; P = .64). Conclusion: Similarly low (0%-6%) revision rates after primary ACL reconstruction were seen regardless of allograft tissue type, bone block versus all-soft tissue allograft, and sterilization technique in 418 patients with mean age of 39 years. Surgeons may consider appropriately processed allograft tissue with or without bone block when indicating ACL reconstruction in older patients.
Purpose: To determine whether surgeon volume affects revision rate following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with allograft and to determine whether surgeon volume impacts allograft tissue type used. Methods: All patients aged 14 years or older who underwent primary allograft ACLR at a large hospital system between January 2015 to December 2019 with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Patients with double-bundle ACLR, multiligament reconstruction, and absent allograft type data were excluded. Surgeon volume was categorized as 35 or more ACLR/year for high-volume surgeons and less than 35 ACLR/year for low-volume surgeons. Revision was defined as subsequent ipsilateral ACLR. Patient characteristics, operative details, allograft type, and revision ACLR rates were retrospectively collected. Revision rate and allograft type were analyzed based on surgeon volume. Results: A total of 457 primary allograft ACLR cases (mean age: 38.8 ± 12.3 years) were included. Low-volume surgeons experienced greater revision rates (10% vs 5%, P = .04) and used allograft in a younger population (37.6 vs 40.0 years old, P = .03) than high-volume surgeons. Subgroup analysis of the total cohort identified a significantly increased failure rate in patients <25 years old compared with ≥25 years old (30% vs 4%, P < .001). Allograft type selection varied significantly between surgeon volume groups, with low-volume surgeons using more bone-patellar tendon-bone (P < .001) and less semitendinosus allograft (P = .01) than high-volume surgeons. No differences in revision rate were observed based on allograft type (P = .71). Conclusions: There was a greater revision rate following primary allograft ACLR among low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons. Low-volume surgeons also used allograft in a younger population than did high-volume surgeons. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.
