Loading…
Comparison of Fresh Osteochondral Autografts and Allografts: A Canine Model
Background Osteochondral autografts and allografts have been widely used in the treatment of isolated grade IV articular cartilage lesions of the knee. However, the authors are not aware of any study that has prospectively compared fresh osteochondral autografts to fresh allografts with regard to im...
Saved in:
| Published in: | The American journal of sports medicine 2006-07, Vol.34 (7), p.1084-1093 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c515t-809021d0fed96ec6479a57858e7892f29bf0b53255a2766a869a2f839d565e9e3 |
| container_end_page | 1093 |
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 1084 |
| container_title | The American journal of sports medicine |
| container_volume | 34 |
| creator | Glenn, R. Edward McCarty, Eric C. Potter, Hollis G. Juliao, Saul F. Gordon, Jeffrey D. Spindler, Kurt P. |
| description | Background
Osteochondral autografts and allografts have been widely used in the treatment of isolated grade IV articular cartilage lesions of the knee. However, the authors are not aware of any study that has prospectively compared fresh osteochondral autografts to fresh allografts with regard to imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.
Hypothesis
The imaging, biomechanical properties, and histologic appearance of fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allo-graft are similar with respect to bony incorporation into host bone, articular cartilage composition, and biomechanical properties.
Study Design
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods
Eighteen adult dogs underwent bilateral knee osteochondral graft implantation after creation of an Outerbridge grade IV cartilage defect. One knee received an autograft, and the contralateral knee received a fresh allograft. Nine dogs were sacrificed at 3 months, and 9 dogs were sacrificed at 6 months. Graft analysis included gross examination, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.
Results
Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated excellent bony incorporation of both autografts and allografts. Biomechanical testing demonstrated no significant difference between autografts versus allografts versus control at 3 or 6 months (P= .36-.91). A post hoc calculation showed 80% power to detect a 30% difference between allograft and control. Histologic examination showed normal cartilage structure for both autografts and allografts.
Conclusion
Fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft tissues are not statistically different with respect to bony incorporation, articular cartilage composition, or biomechanical properties up to 6 months after implantation.
Clinical Relevance
The use of fresh allograft tissue to treat osteochondral defects eliminates morbidity associated with harvesting autograft tissue without compromising the results of the surgical procedure. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0363546505284846 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68566872</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A148564863</galeid><sage_id>10.1177_0363546505284846</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A148564863</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c515t-809021d0fed96ec6479a57858e7892f29bf0b53255a2766a869a2f839d565e9e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0s2LEzEUAPBBFLe7evckg7KCh1nz_YGnUtxVKPSi55BmXrqzZCY1mYH1vzelA6WLi-QQkvzey0t4VfUOoxuMpfyCqKCcCY44UUwx8aJaYM5JQ6ngL6vF4bg5nF9Ulzk_IISwFOp1dYEF44QIvqi-rmK_t6nLcaijr28T5Pt6k0eI7j4ObbKhXk5j3CXrx1zboa2XIczLN9Urb0OGt_N8Vf26_fZz9b1Zb-5-rJbrxnHMx0YhjQhukYdWC3CCSW25VFyBVJp4orcebTklnFsihbBKaEu8orrlgoMGelV9Oubdp_h7gjyavssOQrADxCkbobgQSpL_QiyJYJqyAj88gQ9xSkN5hCFYIomJRgV9fA5hLaWkJZ0s6uaodjaA6QYfx2RdGS30nYsD-K7sLzErRTIlaAn4fBZQzAiP485OORt1tz63zb-siyHADkz55dXm3KOjdynmnMCbfep6m_4YjMyhY8zTjikh7-dXTtse2lPA3CIFXM_AZmeDT3ZwXT45qQmjTJ1qzbaUdvqq5y7-C8enzuA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1977731727</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Fresh Osteochondral Autografts and Allografts: A Canine Model</title><source>SAGE</source><creator>Glenn, R. Edward ; McCarty, Eric C. ; Potter, Hollis G. ; Juliao, Saul F. ; Gordon, Jeffrey D. ; Spindler, Kurt P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Glenn, R. Edward ; McCarty, Eric C. ; Potter, Hollis G. ; Juliao, Saul F. ; Gordon, Jeffrey D. ; Spindler, Kurt P.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Osteochondral autografts and allografts have been widely used in the treatment of isolated grade IV articular cartilage lesions of the knee. However, the authors are not aware of any study that has prospectively compared fresh osteochondral autografts to fresh allografts with regard to imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.
Hypothesis
The imaging, biomechanical properties, and histologic appearance of fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allo-graft are similar with respect to bony incorporation into host bone, articular cartilage composition, and biomechanical properties.
Study Design
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods
Eighteen adult dogs underwent bilateral knee osteochondral graft implantation after creation of an Outerbridge grade IV cartilage defect. One knee received an autograft, and the contralateral knee received a fresh allograft. Nine dogs were sacrificed at 3 months, and 9 dogs were sacrificed at 6 months. Graft analysis included gross examination, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.
Results
Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated excellent bony incorporation of both autografts and allografts. Biomechanical testing demonstrated no significant difference between autografts versus allografts versus control at 3 or 6 months (P= .36-.91). A post hoc calculation showed 80% power to detect a 30% difference between allograft and control. Histologic examination showed normal cartilage structure for both autografts and allografts.
Conclusion
Fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft tissues are not statistically different with respect to bony incorporation, articular cartilage composition, or biomechanical properties up to 6 months after implantation.
Clinical Relevance
The use of fresh allograft tissue to treat osteochondral defects eliminates morbidity associated with harvesting autograft tissue without compromising the results of the surgical procedure.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-5465</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3365</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0363546505284846</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16452265</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJSMDO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Animals ; Articular cartilage ; Autografts ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Biomechanics ; Care and treatment ; Cartilage ; Cartilage, Articular - diagnostic imaging ; Cartilage, Articular - transplantation ; Comparative studies ; Diseases of the osteoarticular system ; Dogs ; Female ; Femur - diagnostic imaging ; Femur - surgery ; Femur - transplantation ; Health aspects ; Histology ; Injuries ; Knee ; Knee injuries ; Knee Joint - diagnostic imaging ; Knee Joint - surgery ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Medical sciences ; NMR ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; Radiography ; Skin & tissue grafts ; Sports injuries ; Sports medicine ; Transplantation, Autologous - pathology ; Transplantation, Homologous - pathology</subject><ispartof>The American journal of sports medicine, 2006-07, Vol.34 (7), p.1084-1093</ispartof><rights>2006 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2006 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2006 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Sage Publications Ltd. Jul 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c515t-809021d0fed96ec6479a57858e7892f29bf0b53255a2766a869a2f839d565e9e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,79236</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17924348$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16452265$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Glenn, R. Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCarty, Eric C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potter, Hollis G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Juliao, Saul F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gordon, Jeffrey D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spindler, Kurt P.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Fresh Osteochondral Autografts and Allografts: A Canine Model</title><title>The American journal of sports medicine</title><addtitle>Am J Sports Med</addtitle><description>Background
Osteochondral autografts and allografts have been widely used in the treatment of isolated grade IV articular cartilage lesions of the knee. However, the authors are not aware of any study that has prospectively compared fresh osteochondral autografts to fresh allografts with regard to imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.
Hypothesis
The imaging, biomechanical properties, and histologic appearance of fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allo-graft are similar with respect to bony incorporation into host bone, articular cartilage composition, and biomechanical properties.
Study Design
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods
Eighteen adult dogs underwent bilateral knee osteochondral graft implantation after creation of an Outerbridge grade IV cartilage defect. One knee received an autograft, and the contralateral knee received a fresh allograft. Nine dogs were sacrificed at 3 months, and 9 dogs were sacrificed at 6 months. Graft analysis included gross examination, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.
Results
Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated excellent bony incorporation of both autografts and allografts. Biomechanical testing demonstrated no significant difference between autografts versus allografts versus control at 3 or 6 months (P= .36-.91). A post hoc calculation showed 80% power to detect a 30% difference between allograft and control. Histologic examination showed normal cartilage structure for both autografts and allografts.
Conclusion
Fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft tissues are not statistically different with respect to bony incorporation, articular cartilage composition, or biomechanical properties up to 6 months after implantation.
Clinical Relevance
The use of fresh allograft tissue to treat osteochondral defects eliminates morbidity associated with harvesting autograft tissue without compromising the results of the surgical procedure.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Articular cartilage</subject><subject>Autografts</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Cartilage</subject><subject>Cartilage, Articular - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Cartilage, Articular - transplantation</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Femur - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Femur - surgery</subject><subject>Femur - transplantation</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Histology</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Knee injuries</subject><subject>Knee Joint - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Knee Joint - surgery</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Skin & tissue grafts</subject><subject>Sports injuries</subject><subject>Sports medicine</subject><subject>Transplantation, Autologous - pathology</subject><subject>Transplantation, Homologous - pathology</subject><issn>0363-5465</issn><issn>1552-3365</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0s2LEzEUAPBBFLe7evckg7KCh1nz_YGnUtxVKPSi55BmXrqzZCY1mYH1vzelA6WLi-QQkvzey0t4VfUOoxuMpfyCqKCcCY44UUwx8aJaYM5JQ6ngL6vF4bg5nF9Ulzk_IISwFOp1dYEF44QIvqi-rmK_t6nLcaijr28T5Pt6k0eI7j4ObbKhXk5j3CXrx1zboa2XIczLN9Urb0OGt_N8Vf26_fZz9b1Zb-5-rJbrxnHMx0YhjQhukYdWC3CCSW25VFyBVJp4orcebTklnFsihbBKaEu8orrlgoMGelV9Oubdp_h7gjyavssOQrADxCkbobgQSpL_QiyJYJqyAj88gQ9xSkN5hCFYIomJRgV9fA5hLaWkJZ0s6uaodjaA6QYfx2RdGS30nYsD-K7sLzErRTIlaAn4fBZQzAiP485OORt1tz63zb-siyHADkz55dXm3KOjdynmnMCbfep6m_4YjMyhY8zTjikh7-dXTtse2lPA3CIFXM_AZmeDT3ZwXT45qQmjTJ1qzbaUdvqq5y7-C8enzuA</recordid><startdate>20060701</startdate><enddate>20060701</enddate><creator>Glenn, R. Edward</creator><creator>McCarty, Eric C.</creator><creator>Potter, Hollis G.</creator><creator>Juliao, Saul F.</creator><creator>Gordon, Jeffrey D.</creator><creator>Spindler, Kurt P.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060701</creationdate><title>Comparison of Fresh Osteochondral Autografts and Allografts</title><author>Glenn, R. Edward ; McCarty, Eric C. ; Potter, Hollis G. ; Juliao, Saul F. ; Gordon, Jeffrey D. ; Spindler, Kurt P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c515t-809021d0fed96ec6479a57858e7892f29bf0b53255a2766a869a2f839d565e9e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Articular cartilage</topic><topic>Autografts</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Cartilage</topic><topic>Cartilage, Articular - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Cartilage, Articular - transplantation</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Femur - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Femur - surgery</topic><topic>Femur - transplantation</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Histology</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Knee injuries</topic><topic>Knee Joint - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Knee Joint - surgery</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Skin & tissue grafts</topic><topic>Sports injuries</topic><topic>Sports medicine</topic><topic>Transplantation, Autologous - pathology</topic><topic>Transplantation, Homologous - pathology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Glenn, R. Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCarty, Eric C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potter, Hollis G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Juliao, Saul F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gordon, Jeffrey D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spindler, Kurt P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of sports medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Glenn, R. Edward</au><au>McCarty, Eric C.</au><au>Potter, Hollis G.</au><au>Juliao, Saul F.</au><au>Gordon, Jeffrey D.</au><au>Spindler, Kurt P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Fresh Osteochondral Autografts and Allografts: A Canine Model</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of sports medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Sports Med</addtitle><date>2006-07-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1084</spage><epage>1093</epage><pages>1084-1093</pages><issn>0363-5465</issn><eissn>1552-3365</eissn><coden>AJSMDO</coden><abstract>Background
Osteochondral autografts and allografts have been widely used in the treatment of isolated grade IV articular cartilage lesions of the knee. However, the authors are not aware of any study that has prospectively compared fresh osteochondral autografts to fresh allografts with regard to imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.
Hypothesis
The imaging, biomechanical properties, and histologic appearance of fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allo-graft are similar with respect to bony incorporation into host bone, articular cartilage composition, and biomechanical properties.
Study Design
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods
Eighteen adult dogs underwent bilateral knee osteochondral graft implantation after creation of an Outerbridge grade IV cartilage defect. One knee received an autograft, and the contralateral knee received a fresh allograft. Nine dogs were sacrificed at 3 months, and 9 dogs were sacrificed at 6 months. Graft analysis included gross examination, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, biomechanical testing, and histology.
Results
Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated excellent bony incorporation of both autografts and allografts. Biomechanical testing demonstrated no significant difference between autografts versus allografts versus control at 3 or 6 months (P= .36-.91). A post hoc calculation showed 80% power to detect a 30% difference between allograft and control. Histologic examination showed normal cartilage structure for both autografts and allografts.
Conclusion
Fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft tissues are not statistically different with respect to bony incorporation, articular cartilage composition, or biomechanical properties up to 6 months after implantation.
Clinical Relevance
The use of fresh allograft tissue to treat osteochondral defects eliminates morbidity associated with harvesting autograft tissue without compromising the results of the surgical procedure.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>16452265</pmid><doi>10.1177/0363546505284846</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0363-5465 |
| ispartof | The American journal of sports medicine, 2006-07, Vol.34 (7), p.1084-1093 |
| issn | 0363-5465 1552-3365 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68566872 |
| source | SAGE |
| subjects | Animals Articular cartilage Autografts Biological and medical sciences Biomechanical Phenomena Biomechanics Care and treatment Cartilage Cartilage, Articular - diagnostic imaging Cartilage, Articular - transplantation Comparative studies Diseases of the osteoarticular system Dogs Female Femur - diagnostic imaging Femur - surgery Femur - transplantation Health aspects Histology Injuries Knee Knee injuries Knee Joint - diagnostic imaging Knee Joint - surgery Magnetic Resonance Imaging Male Medical sciences NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance Radiography Skin & tissue grafts Sports injuries Sports medicine Transplantation, Autologous - pathology Transplantation, Homologous - pathology |
| title | Comparison of Fresh Osteochondral Autografts and Allografts: A Canine Model |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T17%3A53%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Fresh%20Osteochondral%20Autografts%20and%20Allografts:%20A%20Canine%20Model&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20sports%20medicine&rft.au=Glenn,%20R.%20Edward&rft.date=2006-07-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1084&rft.epage=1093&rft.pages=1084-1093&rft.issn=0363-5465&rft.eissn=1552-3365&rft.coden=AJSMDO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0363546505284846&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA148564863%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c515t-809021d0fed96ec6479a57858e7892f29bf0b53255a2766a869a2f839d565e9e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1977731727&rft_id=info:pmid/16452265&rft_galeid=A148564863&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0363546505284846&rfr_iscdi=true |