title: Comparison of fresh osteochondral autografts and allografts: a canine model.
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.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The imaging, biomechanical properties, and histologic appearance of fresh osteochondral autograft and fresh allograft are similar with respect to bony incorporation into host bone, articular cartilage composition, and biomechanical properties.
  
  
  METHODS
  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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt Sports Medicine Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
authors.forename: R Edward
authors.initials: RE
authors.lastname: Glenn
authors.forename: Eric C
authors.initials: EC
authors.lastname: McCarty
authors.forename: Hollis G
authors.initials: HG
authors.lastname: Potter
authors.forename: Saul F
authors.initials: SF
authors.lastname: Juliao
authors.forename: Jeffrey D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Gordon
authors.forename: Kurt P
authors.initials: KP
authors.lastname: Spindler
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D002358:Cartilage, Articular / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000637:transplantation*; D004285:Dogs; D005260:Female; D005269:Femur / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery* / Q000637:transplantation; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D011859:Radiography; D014182:Transplantation, Autologous / Q000473:pathology*; D014184:Transplantation, Homologous / Q000473:pathology*