I’ll try to repost the links to the studies are below:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27900338/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30923725/
Hopefully they work.
Thanks Stryker.
Both articles are Open Access, so you can click on the link and print the article to take to your orthopedist.
I first began using non-crosslinked decellularized porcine jejunum (small intestine) matrix in the early 2000's for pelvic floor repairs and had great results with it. I had no complications and believed that I got better repairs with the non-crosslinked decellularized collagen matrix, which provided a scaffold for pelvic floor repairs, than native tissue repairs or the synthetic graphs which other doctors were using. In the animal studies of the product that I used, the tritium-labeled (
3H) matrix was detectable at 1% in the extirpated organ at 12 weeks. This scaffolding was removed proverbially "brick by brick" and replaced immediately with the desired tissue. It appears that this is what is happening in the ACL. I notice that the hamstring length seems longer at the 2 year follow up. This surgery makes sense to me as an improvement and may be state of the art in about 5 years. (I expect to see Dr Murray
https://www.childrenshospital.org/directory/martha-murray on the lecture circuit and national television, when she is comfortable to promote this.)
In my case, the company pulled the product from the market when the FDA sent warnings about "Mesh" for pelvic floor repairs. Even tho' this was not a mesh, they did not want to hassle with the trial lawyers who would lump this product in with the "meshes", much to my dismay.
By the way, the husband of one of my patients, who had one of my early repairs, went to the Masters in Augusta GA 6 months later and bought me a shirt. That and a few other early patients convinced me the scaffolding did with respect to the repair what meshes or other crosslinked biologics could not do. I still see a few of my repairs 15-20 years later.