Medical Science
| Open Access |
DOI: Comparison of The Clinical Results of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Autologous Versus Allogeneic Grafts: A Meta- Analysis
Fernando de Souza Novaes Júnior , Orthopedic and Traumatology resident physician at the Integrated Health System of Northern Paraná Julia Patel Lebl , Orthopedic and Traumatology resident physician at the Municipal Health Department of Piracicaba, SP, Brazil Mateus Santos Souza , Orthopedic and Traumatology resident physician at the Municipal Health Department of Piracicaba, SP, Brazil Henrique Luiz Fidelis de Farias , Orthopedic and Trauma Surgeon at the Ceilândia Regional Hospital, Federal District Melissa Alves Aires Marques , Medical student at Iguaçu University, Itaperuna, RJ.Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical results of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using autologous versus allogeneic grafts, by means of a systematic review with meta-analysis. Methodology: The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, with searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus. Randomized clinical trials published between 2011 and 2025 involving adult patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction were included. The outcomes assessed were function (subjective and objective IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner, Cincinnati), joint stability (clinical tests and arthrometer) and complications, including graft failure. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: After initial screening of 14 articles, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria, totaling 471 patients (238 autogenous and 233 allogenous). Both groups showed significant improvement in joint function and stability at follow-up ≥ 24 months, with no statistically significant differences in functional scores. However, the failure rate was higher in allografts (up to 26% in some studies). Conclusion: ACL reconstruction with autografts and allografts results in significant clinical improvement, but autografts have a lower risk of failure and greater stability, making them the preferred option in high-demand individuals.
Keywords
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, anterior cruciate ligament, allograft and autograft
References
Bottoni CR, Smith EL, Shaha J, Shaha SS, Raybin SG, Tokish JM, Rowles DJ. Autograft Versus Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study With a Minimum 10-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Oct;43(10):2501-9. doi: 10.1177/0363546515596406. Epub 2015 Aug 26. PMID: 26311445.
Li J, Wang J, Li Y, Shao D, You X, Shen Y. A Prospective Randomized Study of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Autograft, γ-Irradiated Allograft, and Hybrid Graft. Arthroscopy. 2015 Jul;31(7):1296-302. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.02.033. Epub 2015 Apr 17. PMID: 25891223.
Sun K, Zhang J, Wang Y, Xia C, Zhang C, Yu T, Tian S. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstring tendon autograft and fresh-frozen allograft: a prospective, randomized controlled study. Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jul;39(7):1430-8. doi: 10.1177/0363546511400384. Epub 2011 Mar 25. PMID: 21441418.
Lawhorn KW, Howell SM, Traina SM, Gottlieb JE, Meade TD, Freedberg HI. The effect of graft tissue on anterior cruciate ligament outcomes: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing autograft hamstrings with fresh-frozen anterior tibialis allograft. Arthroscopy. 2012 Aug;28(8):1079-86. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.05.010. PMID: 22840988.
Yoo SH, Song EK, Shin YR, Kim SK, Seon JK. Comparison of clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic findings after ACL reconstruction using a hamstring autograft or a tibialis allograft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Apr;25(4):1290-1297. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3955-3. Epub 2015 Dec 30. PMID: 26718638.
Zeng C, Gao SG, Li H, et al. Autograft Versus Allograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Review of Overlapping Systematic Reviews. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(1):153-63.e18. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.027
Wang HD, Zhang H, Wang TR, Zhang WF, Wang FS, Zhang YZ. Comparison of clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft versus soft-tissue allograft: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2018;56:174-183. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.06.030
Zhu S, Ma R, Qiao R, Zhang J, Hu Y. The results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2025;35(1):337. Published 2025 Aug 3. doi:10.1007/s00590-025-04470-7
Mouarbes D, Menetrey J, Marot V, Courtot L, Berard E, Cavaignac E. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outcomes for Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Versus Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone and Hamstring-Tendon Autografts. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(14):3531-3540. doi:10.1177/0363546518825340
Hurley ET, Mojica ES, Kanakamedala AC, et al. Quadriceps tendon has a lower re-rupture rate than hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - A meta-analysis. J ISAKOS. 2022;7(2):87-93. doi:10.1016/j.jisako.2021.10.001
Chang MJ, Choi YS, Shin JH, et al. Comparison of failure rates and functional outcomes between hamstring autografts and hybrid grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2023;109(6):103499. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103499
Fan D, Ma J, Zhang L. Patellar tendon versus artificial grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):478. Published 2021 Aug 4. doi:10.1186/s13018-021-02624-x
Article Statistics
Downloads
Copyright License
Copyright (c) 2025 Fernando de Souza Novaes Júnior, Julia Patel Lebl, Mateus Santos Souza, Henrique Luiz Fidelis de Farias, Melissa Alves Aires Marques
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.