Comparison of Outcome of Bone Autograft and Allograft in Union of Long Bone Fractures

Abstract

Abstract Background and Purpose There are few studies addressing the rate of application of bone allograft and its use; hence, the present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of using bone allograft and autograft in patients with long bone fracture. Method In this clinical trial study, all patients who underwent bone graft surgery with the diagnosed long bone fractures of upper and lower limbs at Shahid Beheshti Hospital were included in the research. Patients were divided into two groups, autograft and allograft, according to type of treatment. They were evaluated for their union, complications, and range of motion. Results In the present study, 124 people were studied. Among them, 100 patients were eligible and included in the study. The allograft and autograft groups did not have any statistical significant differences in terms of age, sex, location, causes of fracture, and surgical methods. Results of the present research on patients in terms of fracture site indicated that there was no significant relationship between the two groups in rate of union (P = 0.18). Allograft and autograft had no difference in terms of complications. Studied range of motion indicated that patients were not different in terms of their ranges of motion. Conclusion Based on findings of the present study, allograft could be a suitable substitute for the autograft. The two graft methods were similar in terms of complications, union, and ranges of motion.