Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 15, 487-495
eCollection

Hybrid Graft vs Autograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis

Affiliations

Hybrid Graft vs Autograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis

Lei Wang et al. Ther Clin Risk Manag.

Abstract

Purpose: We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of hybrid grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Methods: We performed an electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect from the inception of these databases to February 2018, based on the terms "anterior cruciate ligament or ACL reconstruction", "autograft", "hybrid", and "augment". Relevant journals and conference proceedings were searched manually. Quality assessment, data extraction, and calculation of data from the included studies were conducted independently by two reviewers using RevMan 5.1.

Results: One randomized controlled trial and eight nonrandomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Larger graft diameters were found in the hybrid-graft group (mean difference -1.47, P=0.0001). There was no significant difference in failure rate (OR 2.13, P=0.21), retearing (OR 2.23, P=0.12), revision of ACLR (OR 1.05, P=0.87) or reoperation (OR 1.27, P=0.35). Subgroup analysis showed that hybrid-graft patients with meniscus injury suffered more revision (OR 4.10, P=0.02) and reoperation (OR 5.74, P=0.001). Both autografts and hybrid grafts performed similarly in most knee-score systems. However, autograft patients had better KT-1000 (mean difference 0.24, P=0.05) and quality-of-life results on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score measure (mean difference 7.23, P=0.05).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis of the current literature indicates similar performance of hybrid or autologous grafts in ACLR, though hybrid grafts had larger diameters than autografts. Other potential factors to influence failure, revision, or postoperative knee function, such as irradiation, age at reconstruction, meniscus injury/treatment, and hybrid-graft remodeling, should be investigated further.

Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament; autograft; hybrid graft; reconstruction.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk-of-bias summary.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot for reoperation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot showing graft diameter.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot showing failure.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot showing revision.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Wang H, Fleischli JE, Zheng NN. Transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: outcomes of knee joint kinematics during walking. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(8):1847–1856. - PubMed
    1. Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M, et al. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2363–2370. - PubMed
    1. Mariscalco MW, Flanigan DC, Mitchell J, et al. The influence of hamstring autograft size on patient-reported outcomes and risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a multicenter orthopaedic outcomes network (moon) cohort study. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(12):1948–1953. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mohan R, Webster KE, Johnson NR, et al. Clinical outcomes in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(1):289–300. - PubMed
    1. Alvarez-Pinzon AM, Barksdale L, Krill MK, Leo BM. Hybrid graft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a predictable graft for knee stabilization. Orthopedics. 2015;38(6):e473–e476. - PubMed
Feedback