Background: There is no consensus regarding the use of filling agent in the re-elevation of depressed tibial plateau fracture (TPF). Although autograft is considered as the gold standard approach of such reconstructions, its limitation has led to a recent attraction toward allograft substitution. In this study, we compare the complications and outcome of autograft and allograft in TPF reconstruction, in order to address the existing controversy.
Materials and methods: A total of 81 patients with acute TPF were included in this study. Allograft and autograft were applied in 58 and 23 cases, respectively. The mean age of the patients was 40.26 years, and the mean follow-up period of patients was 19.1 months. Clinical and radiological assessment of the outcome was conducted, employing the modified Rasmussen clinical criteria.
Results: A total of three infections were observed in our patients, from which two infections occurred in allograft received patients. Articular surface collapse was seen in two cases, including one allograft and one autograft receiving patient. The mean clinical score was 18.65 and 18.55 in autograft and allograft received patients, respectively (p = 0.09). The mean radiological score was 15.65 and 15.68 in autograft and allograft received patients (p = 0.3).
Conclusion: With respect to the comparable complication rate, clinical and radiological outcome of allogenic versus autologous reconstruction of TPF, freeze-dried allograft could be recommended as an appropriate substitute of autograft in this treatment. Nevertheless, the longer follow-up period of the patients could further extend our understanding of the clinical outcome of each component.
Keywords: Allograft; Autograft; Reconstruction; Tibial plateau fractures.