{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Peroneus longus tendon autograft versus allograft in revision ACLR: A retrospective comparison.
{Author}: Selcuk H;Baz AB;Egerci OF;Kose O;
{Journal}: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res
{Volume}: 110
{Issue}: 4
{Year}: 2024 Jun 25
{Factor}: 2.425
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103775
{Abstract}: OBJECTIVE: The use of peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has increased recently, but there is a lack of research on its use in revision ACLR. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between revision ACLR using allografts and PLT autografts.
METHODS: Fifty-nine patients who underwent arthroscopic revision of ACLR with complete clinical follow-ups between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Allograft was used in 44 of these patients, and PLT autograft was used in 15 of them. Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, Lachman, and anterior drawer tests were performed after a mean follow-up of 60months (range: 19-116). The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale was used to evaluate the donor ankle functions. Clinical outcomes and complications were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significantly improved functional outcomes compared to their preoperative assessments. However, both groups had similar clinical results at the final follow-up, including Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, knee range of motion, return to sports, time to return to daily activities, and rate of re-rupture. No major complications were seen in any of the patients. The AOFAS score was 99.13±2.64 in the PLT autograft group without loss of ankle muscle strength, deformity, instability, and permanent iatrogenic neurovascular injuries. The cumulative cost of the allograft group was significantly higher than the PLT autograft group.
CONCLUSIONS: The PLT autograft might be an alternative autograft option to allografts due to similar clinical outcomes, low donor site morbidity, and reduced cost in ACLR revisions, especially if the primary ACLR was performed using grafts harvested around the knee.
METHODS: III; retrospective comparative study.