Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Improves Anteroposterior Stability As Well As Rotational Stability in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with High-Grade Pivot Shift

Loop technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with anterolateral structure reinforcement: technical description and clinical results

PURPOSE

We describe a surgical technique for ACL reconstruction combined with anterolateral structure reinforcement and report early clinical follow-up results.

METHODS

The semitendinosus and gracilis tendons are braided into 5 strands and the ACL femoral tunnel and tibial tunnel are created. The graft is passed through the tunnel with the use of a traction suture and the tibial end is fixed with absorbable interference screws at 30° of knee flexion. The ACL graft traction suture is used as an anterolateral reconstruction structure to pass through the proximal exit of the ACL femoral tunnel and then through the depth of the iliotibial bundle to the anterior to Gerdy's tubercle, a bony tunnel is created from the anterior to Gerdy's tubercle to the goose foot, and the traction suture is passed through this bony tunnel to form a Loop structure at 20° of knee flexion. Between March 2021 and May 2022 IKDC score, Lysholm score, and Tegner score were performed preoperatively and 6-12 months postoperatively in 24 consecutive patients who met the indications for this procedure and underwent surgery. The patient's maximum flexion angle, the circumference of the thigh, and the stress X-ray between the operated and healthy knee were measured.

RESULTS

Patients showed significant improvement in IKDC score, Lysholm score and Tegner score at a mean follow-up of 7 months postoperatively compared to preoperatively. No significant increase in anterior tibial displacement was found between the patient's operated side and the healthy side.

CONCLUSION

The Loop technique ACLR combined with ALSA can be used in patients with an ACL tear combined with a high degree of positive pivot shift. The patient's subjective perception was significantly improved from the preoperative period and knee stability was restored.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, therapeutic study.

Editorial Commentary: Knee Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Procedures: Appropriate Study Design Is Essential for Reducing Conflicting Findings and Unnecessary Controversy in the Orthopaedic Literature

Knee lateral extra-articular tenodesis procedures (LEAPs) reduce graft rupture rates when performed at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction, LEAPs are less studied and remain controversial. Many studies support combined procedures (ACL + LEAP), yet others do not. When the literature comprises small patient cohorts and short follow-up periods, conflicting results often arise. The controversy surrounding them may be unnecessarily generated by the publication of low-quality studies. Future studies should focus on adequate power; appropriate design and methodology, including matching or randomization to account for potential confounding factors; proper statistical analyses; and avoidance of spin bias.

A Lateral Extra-articular Procedure Reduces the Failure Rate of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery Without Increasing Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lateral extra-articular procedures are becoming increasingly popular in association with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, especially in patients with persistent rotatory instability and in a high-risk population. However, few studies have investigated the outcomes of the lateral extra-articular procedure as an associated procedure in an ACL revision (R-ACLR) setting and its benefit with respect to isolated intra-articular reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS

Lateral extra-articular procedures reduce the failure rate of revision ACL reconstruction (R-ACLR).

PURPOSE

To compare subjective outcomes, knee stability, and failure and complication rates between patients who underwent ACL revision with and without an associated lateral extra-articular procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and OVID databases was performed on September 2022 in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Eligible studies were trials directly comparing patients who had isolated ACL revision with patients who had ACL revision associated with lateral extra-articular procedures at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. A meta-analysis was performed, and bias and the quality of the evidence were rated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included: a total of 334 patients were treated with isolated revision (isolated (R-ACLR)) and 342 treated with combined revision and a lateral extra-articular procedure (combined (R-ACLR)). For the failure rate, the meta-analysis showed a significantly decreased relative risk reduction of 54% (P = .004) in patients with combined (R-ACLR) with respect to isolated R-ACL, whereas no difference in complication rate was observed. The combined (R-ACLR) group demonstrated a decreased risk ratio of 50% (P = .002) for having a positive pivot-shift test result and a relative risk reduction of 68% (P = .003) for having a grade 2-3 pivot shift when compared with the isolated (R-ACLR) group. Finally, no significant differences were observed among the lateral extra-articular procedures.

CONCLUSION

The addition of a lateral extra-articular procedure to revision ACL significantly reduced the failure rate and postoperative pivot shift without increasing the complication rate. Anterolateral ligament reconstruction and a lateral extra-articular procedure with iliotibial band were effective in improving the outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction. Further high-level studies could help to clarify which subgroup of patients could particularly benefit from an anterolateral procedure in the context of ACL revision.

Utility of three-dimensional proton density-weighted sequence MRI in knee for the assessment of Anterolateral complex in Anterior cruciate ligament injury

OBJECTIVES

To assess the proportion and pattern of injury of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) and the Kaplan fibre (KF) complex in knees with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries on MRI using three-dimensional (3D) proton density (PD) sequences.

METHODS

A total of 88 patients having ACL injury were included in this cross-sectional study. 3D PD sequences were used to assess injury of ALL and the KF complex and were graded on a scale of 0 to 3. MR images were evaluated by two radiologists. Interobserver agreement was determined using Cohen Kappa.

RESULTS

Femoral, meniscal, and tibial portions of ALL were visualized in 90.9%, 92%, and 94.3% of the study subjects, respectively. Proximal and distal KF were visualized in 92% and 93.2% of patients, respectively. Injury to ALL and KF was seen in 63.6% and 17% of the patients, respectively. Excellent interobserver agreement was noted for the identification and grading of ALL and KF complex injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Oblique reformatted 3DPD MRI reliably detect ALC; however, ALL injury is better characterized than KF injury using this sequence.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Given the potential role of anterolateral complex (ALC) in maintaining the rotational stability of the knee, ALC assessment using the 3D PD sequences and their oblique reformatted images should be incorporated as routine review area of the knee MRI, particularly in the setting of ACL tear.

Knee Flexion Angle of Fixation During Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Lateral Extra-articular Reinforcement Techniques Performed in Conjunction With ACL Reconstruction

Background

Anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) or lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) is being used more frequently in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the knee flexion angle at which fixation of ALLR or LET is performed during the procedure is quite variable based on existing technique descriptions.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to identify whether flexion angle at the time of ALLR/LET fixation affected postoperative outcomes in a clinical population. It was hypothesized that ALLR/LET fixation at low versus high flexion angles would lead to no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures and graft failure rates.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to identify published clinical studies of ACLR with ALLR/LET in which the knee flexion angle at the time of ALLR/LET was reported. A priori, low flexion was defined as 0° to 30°, and high flexion was defined as 60° to 90°. Studies were excluded if the flexion angle was between 31° and 59° because these angles constituted neither low nor high flexion angles and including them in an analysis of high versus low flexion angle at fixation would have biased the study results toward the null. The overall risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The pooled results of the studies were analyzed using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner scores, along with reported graft failure rates.

Results

A total of 32 clinical studies (5230 patients) met inclusion criteria: 22 studies (1999 patients) in the low-flexion group and 10 studies (3231 patients) in the high-flexion group. The median Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was 6. Comparisons of patients with a low flexion angle versus a high flexion angle demonstrated no differences in the IKDC (P = .84), Lysholm (P = .67), or Tegner (P = .44) scores or in graft failure (3.4% vs 4.1%, respectively; P = .69).

Conclusion

The results of this review indicated that ACLR performed in conjunction with ALLR/LET provides good to excellent patient-reported outcomes and low graft failure rates when ALLR/LET fixation is performed in either low or high knee flexion.

The Role of Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Clinical Studies

BACKGROUND

After its success in restoring rotational stability and reducing failure rates in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) or anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) has been endorsed for use in revision ACLR surgery, where failure rates are historically higher.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether the addition of a LET or ALLR results in superior clinical outcomes and stability compared with isolated revision ACLR (iACLR).

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms: ("extra-articular" OR "tenodesis" OR "anterolateral ligament" OR "iliotibial") AND ("anterior cruciate ligament") AND ("revision" OR "re-operation"). Data pertaining to all patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), rotational stability, and postoperative complications were extracted from each study.

RESULTS

After abstract and full-text screening, 10 clinical comparative studies were included. There were 793 patients, of whom 390 had an iACLR while 403 had an ACLR augmented with a LET or an ALLR (augmented ACLR [aACLR]). The mean time for assessment of PROMs was 35 months. The aACLR group had superior International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.54; P = .04), rotational stability (odds ratio [OR], 2.77; 95% CI, 1.91 to 4.01; P < .00001), and lower side-to-side difference (OR, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.24; P = .0003) than those without the augmentation. Furthermore, they were less likely to fail (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.80; P = .007). Subgroup analysis in the higher-grade laxity cohort (grade ≥2) revealed an even greater IKDC score (SMD, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.86; P = .005) and an improved Lysholm score (SMD, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.67; P < .0001) in the aACLR group.

CONCLUSION

Revision aACLR with a LET or an ALLR can improve subjective IKDC scores, restore rotational stability, and reduce failure rates compared with iACLR. Although controversy remains on the necessity of augmenting all revision ACLRs, the present meta-analysis advocates adding a lateral procedure, particularly in those with a higher-grade pivot shift.

Anterolateral knee complex considerations in contemporary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

The anterolateral ligament (ALL) was first described in 1879 in the context of Segond fractures, which correlate with a 75-100% chance of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear or a 66-75% chance of a meniscal tear. The purpose of this paper is to provide an updated comprehensive review on the anterolateral ligament complex of the knee focusing on the: (1) anatomy of the ALL/ALC; (2) associated biomechanics/function; and (3) important surgical considerations in contemporary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic review of studies on ALL was conducted on Pubmed/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases (May 7th, 2020 to February 1st, 2022), with 20 studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were anatomical/biomechanical studies assessing ALL function, cadaveric and computer simulations, and comparative studies on surgical outcomes of ALLR (concomitant with ACL reconstruction). Eight studies were included and graded by MINOR and Newcastle-Ottawa scale to identify potential biases. The anatomy of the ALL is part of the anterolateral ligament complex (ALC), which includes the superficial/deep iliotibial band (including the Kaplan fiber system), iliopatellar band, ALL, and anterolateral capsule. Multiple biomechanical studies have characterized the ALC as a secondary passive stabilizer in resisting tibial internal rotation. Given the role of the ALC in resisting internal tibial rotation, lateral extra-articular procedures including ALL augmentation may be considered for chronic ACL tears, ACL revisions, and a high-grade pivot shift test. In the context of TKA, in the event of injury to the ALC, a more constrained implant or soft-tissue reconstruction may be necessary to restore appropriate knee stability.

Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Decreases Passive Anterior Tibial Subluxation Compared With Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Despite Similar Rotational Stability and Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To analyze the effect of augmenting a hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with an anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) on a primary outcome of passive anterior tibial subluxation (PATS) and a secondary outcome of the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

ACL-injured patients who underwent primary ACLR between March 2014 and February 2020 at our center were enrolled. Patients who underwent combined procedures (ACLR + ALLR) were matched in a 1:1 propensity ratio to patients who underwent ACLR only. We evaluated PATS, knee stability (side-to-side laxity difference, pivot-shift test), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after the procedure and documented complications.

RESULTS

From an initial cohort of 252 patients with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years (48.4 ± 16.6 months), 35 matched pairs were included, and 17 patients (48.6%) in each group underwent second-look arthroscopy. The combined ACLR + ALLR group showed significantly better improvement of PATS in the lateral compartments than the isolated ACLR group (P = .034). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding knee stability (side-to-side laxity difference, pivot-shift test), PROMs, complications, and second-look arthroscopic findings (all P > .05). Moreover, the proportions of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference in PROMs were not different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined ACLR + ALLR procedure was associated with a mean improvement in anterior tibial subluxation for the lateral compartment that was 1.2 mm better than an isolated ACLR procedure, despite its lack of clinical significance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, cohort study.

Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament With Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Yields Similar Clinical and Radiographic Results at Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Versus Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical, radiographic, and second-look arthroscopic outcomes between double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (DB group) and combined single-bundle (SB) ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction (SB + ALL group) by a prospective randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

From May 2019 to June 2020, 84 patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 10 were lost to follow-up. Thirty-six and 38 patients were successfully allocated to the DB (mean follow up 27.3 ± 4.2 months) and SB + ALL groups (27.2 ± 4.5 months), respectively. The preoperative and postoperative Lachman test, pivot shift test, anterior translation on stress radiographs, KT-2000 arthrometer, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, and Tegner activity score were evaluated and compared. Graft continuity was evaluated using postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (32 and 36 patients underwent MRI in the DB and SB + ALL groups at 7.4 ± 3.2 and 7.5 ± 2.9 months after surgery, respectively), and second-look examinations (second-look examination and tibial screw removal were performed concomitantly when patients (1) had tibial screw-related irritation or (2) needed the screws removed, 28 and 23 patients underwent examinations in the DB and SB + ALL groups at 24.0 ± 6.8 and 24.9 ± 8.1 months after surgery, respectively). All measurements were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Postoperative clinical outcomes significantly improved in both groups. (All variables showed P < .001) No statistically different outcomes were found between the 2 groups. Additionally, postoperative graft continuity on MRI and second-look examinations were not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The DB and SB + ALL groups showed similar postoperative clinical, radiographic, and second-look arthroscopic outcomes. Both groups showed excellent postoperative stability and clinical outcomes compared with the preoperative measurements.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, randomized controlled trial.

Combined anterior cruciate ligament revision with reconstruction of the antero-lateral ligament does not improve outcome at 2-year follow-up compared to isolated acl revision; a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

It is essential to obtain rotational stability of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) and it is suggested that a supplementary reconstruction of the antero-lateral ligament (ALL-R) may supports this. Theoretically, ALL-R may be particularly advantageous to support revision of failed ACL-Rs. It was hypothesized that ACL revision combined with ALL-R will result in superior outcome compared to isolated ACL revision.

METHODS

The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. Patients eligible for first time ACL revision were randomized to either isolated ACL revision (- ALL group) or ACL revision combined with a single-stranded allograft ALL-reconstruction (+ ALL group). Patient reported outcomes and function were evaluated at two-year follow-up by KNEES-ACL, KOOS, and Tegner activity scale. Objective knee laxity was evaluated at one-year follow-up using an instrumented Rolimeter test, the pivot shift test, and a manual Lachman test.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients were enrolled with 49 patients randomized to the + ALL group and 54 patients in the - ALL group. There were no differences at baseline between groups regarding age, gender, body mass index, preoperative patient reported outcome scores and concomitant meniscus or cartilage injury. The ACL revision was performed with an allograft in 10 patients (20%) in the + ALL group and 8 patients (15%) in the -ALL group. At follow-up there was no significant difference between the groups in patient reported outcome scores and clinical knee laxity.

CONCLUSION

Supplementary ALL-R does not improve subjective outcome of first time ACL revision at two-years and clinical knee stability at one-year follow-up compared to isolated ACL revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Comparison Between Continuous and Separate Grafts for ALL Reconstruction When Combined With ACL Reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study From the SANTI Study Group

BACKGROUND

While various techniques have been described to augment the anterolateral side of the knee, such as lateral extra-articular tenodesis and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction (ALLR), it is unclear how they affect clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the results of 2 ALLR techniques for combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)/ALL reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS

The graft rupture rate, complications, and patient-reported outcomes are similar between a reconstruction technique using a continuous gracilis graft (CG) and single femoral tunnel for ACL/ALL reconstruction, and one using a separate gracilis graft (SG) and independent femoral tunnels.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively at 2 hospitals was conducted: one in which a CG is preferred when performing combined ACL/ALL reconstruction and the other in which an SG is preferred. The medical records at these 2 hospitals were searched to identify ACL-deficient patients who had undergone ACL/ALL reconstruction between 2015 and 2020. Eligible patients were between 18 and 60 years of age, had the reconstruction surgery done within 24 months of the injury, and had ≥2 years of follow-up. The eligible patients were contacted to gather outcomes, or their outcomes were collected in person during their last follow-up visit. Outcomes evaluated included graft rupture rate, complication rate, and Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) scores. Preoperative and intraoperative data were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 237 patients were available for analysis in the GC group and 178 in the SG group with a mean follow-up of 3 years (CG: SD, 9.6 months; SG: SD, 8.1 months). The authors found a low rate of graft rupture (CG: 3.4%; SG: 2.8%; P = .785) and no difference between techniques. The complication rate was 6% in the CG group, while it was 10% in the SG group (P = .112). The mean value of the IKDC-SKF was similar between techniques (CG: 88.1; SG: 87.9; P = .267), and the mean Lysholm score was excellent in both sets of patients (CG: 90.0; SG: 92.4; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This study found little to no difference in the graft rupture rate, complication rate, and functional knee scores when using a CG or SG for ALLR during combined ACL/ALL reconstruction. Both techniques are equivalent and can be used for an anterolateral augmentation procedure in combination with ACL reconstruction.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Plus Lateral Extra-Articular Procedure Results in Superior Stability and Lower Failure Rates Than Does Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision but Shows No Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes or Return to Sports

PURPOSE

To determine whether comparative clinical studies demonstrate significant advantages of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR) combined with a lateral extra-articular procedure (LEAP), with respect to graft rupture rates, knee stability, return to sport rates, and patient-reported outcome measures, compared with isolated RACLR.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses Guidelines. A PubMed search was conducted using the key words "revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" combined with any of the following additional terms, "lateral extra-articular tenodesis" OR "anterolateral ligament reconstruction" OR "Lemaire." All relevant comparative clinical studies were included. Key clinical data were extracted and evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight comparative studies (seven Level III studies and a one Level IV study) were identified and included. Most studies reported more favorable outcomes with combined procedures with respect to failure rates (0%-13% following RACLR+LEAP, and 4.4%-21.4% following isolated RACLR), postoperative side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference (1.3-3.9 mm following RACLR+LEAP and 1.8-5.9 mm following isolated RACLR), and high-grade pivot shift (0%-11.1% following RACLR+LEAP and 10.2%-23.8% in patients following isolated RACLR). There were no consistent differences between isolated and combined procedures with respect to return to sport or patient-reported outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrates that the addition of a LEAP to RACLR was associated with an advantage with respect to ACL graft failure rates and avoidance of high-grade postoperative knee laxity across almost all included studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic review of level III to IV studies.

Small Hamstring Tendon Graft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Combined With Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Results in the Same Failure Rate as Larger Hamstring Tendon Graft Reconstruction Alone

PURPOSE

To compare patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstring grafts 7 mm or less in diameter combined with anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction versus isolated ACL reconstruction with grafts greater than 7 mm in diameter.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the descriptive data and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring grafts from June 2013 to January 2020 and had a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Patients with quadrupled or quintupled semitendinosus and gracilis autograft 7 mm or less in diameter combined with single-strand ALL reconstruction (ACL-ALL group) were matched in a 1:2 propensity ratio to patients who underwent isolated single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring grafts greater than 7 mm (ACL group).

RESULTS

We identified 30 patients in our database who met the criteria for the ACL-ALL group. The patients in this group were matched to 60 patients comprising the ACL group. Both groups were similar regarding all preoperative matched and unmatched variables. The mean ACL graft diameter was 6.8 ± 0.4 mm in the ACL-ALL group and 8.6 ± 0.6 mm in the ACL group (P < .001). The ACL-ALL group presented 1 failure (3.3%), and the ACL group presented 3 failures (5%) (P = .717). Postoperative KT-1000 measurements were similar between the groups (2.1 ± 1.1 mm vs 1.9 ± 1.2 mm, P = .114), as were postoperative pivot-shift grades (P = .652). Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores and Lysholm scores did not present any differences between the groups (P = .058 and P = .280, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo combined ACL-ALL reconstruction with an ACL graft diameter of 7 mm or less can achieve similar results to patients who undergo isolated ACL reconstruction with a graft diameter greater than 7 mm. An associated ALL reconstruction can be performed to increase knee stability in patients with small-diameter hamstring grafts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective, comparative therapeutic trial.

Function and strain of the anterolateral ligament part II: reconstruction

PURPOSE

Anterolateral rotatory instability (ALRI) may result from isolated ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or combined lesions with the anterolateral ligament (ALL). Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that the ALL contributes to the overall rotational stability of the knee. The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical function of anatomic ALL reconstruction (ALL_rec) in the setting of a combined ACL and ALL injury and reconstruction. The hypothesis was that combined ACL reconstruction (ACL_rec) and ALL_rec (ACL/ALL_rec) significantly reduces internal rotation and shows load sharing between both reconstructions compared with isolated ACL_rec.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were evaluated using a six degrees of freedom knee simulator. Continuous passive motion and external loads were tested. Kinematic differences between ACL_rec and combined ACL/ALL_rec were compared. Additionally, ACL graft tension and ALL graft strain were measured continuously throughout the testing protocol.

RESULTS

Combined anatomic ACL/ALL_rec significantly improved the internal rotatory stability compared with isolated ACL_rec at 30°-90° under an internal rotation moment. During a static pivot-shift test, additional ALL_rec showed no significant reduction of ap-translation. ALL_rec resulted in an increase in ACL graft tension during continuous passive motion and with additional internal rotation moment.

CONCLUSION

In the case of a combined ACL and ALL deficiency, concurrent ACL_rec and ALL_rec significantly improved the rotatory stability of the knee compared with solely reconstructing the ACL at flexion angles ≥ 30°. Nevertheless, additional ALL_rec with fixation at 60° and with low tension could not restore extension-near rotatory stability. For that reason, ALL_rec with fixation at 60° flexion cannot be recommended in clinical application.

The presence of high-grade pivot shift test preoperatively is associated with inferior functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

The effect of high-grade preoperative pivot shift test on outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery is not very well established. The present study was conducted to study the factors associated with high-grade pivot shift test and effect of high-grade preoperative pivot shift test on functional outcomes after ACL reconstruction surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred and sixty-two patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction surgery were enrolled in the study. The pivot shift test was performed preoperatively under anesthesia in all patients. Side of the meniscal tear, if present at the time of ACL reconstruction, was documented. Patients were divided into two groups depending upon the grade of pivot shift test: group H, high-grade pivot shift (n = 84/362; 23%); and group L, low-grade pivot shift (n = 278/362; 77%). Patients were further divided into two groups depending upon the duration of injury: acute (<6 months) and chronic (>6 months). The functional assessment was done using Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale.

RESULTS

The presence of lateral meniscus tear (27/84 vs. 53/278) or both menisci tear (29/84 vs. 60/278) was associated with high-grade pivot shift (p < 0.05). Chronic ACL tears were also observed to be associated with high-grade pivot shift (p = 0.03). The mean Lysholm score in group H and group L patients was 93.8 ± 5.1 and 95.2 ± 5.3, respectively (p = 0.04). The mean post-op Tegner activity scale in group H was 6.8 and in group L was 7.3 (p = 0.0001). Also, 181/253 (71.5%) patients returned to same or higher level of sports activity in group L as compared to 33/72 (46%) patients in group H. The incidence of graft failure in groups H and L was 6.5% (5/77) and 1.6% (4/257; p = 0.03), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The high-grade pivot shift is associated with chronic ACL tear (>6 months) and concomitant lateral meniscus tear. The presence of high-grade pivot shift preoperatively is associated with inferior clinical outcomes and lower rate of return to sports.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case-control study.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Autologous Hamstring Single- versus Double-Bundle Graft: A Prospective Study with 10-Year Follow-up

The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical and subjective outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using an autologous hamstring double bundle (DB) with a single bundle (SB) after a 10-year follow-up. A prospective comparative cohort study was performed of 47 consecutive patients with ACL rupture included between May 2006 and March 2008. Inclusion criteria were less than 2 years since the injury date, no previous surgery on the affected knee, and having closed growth plates. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) SB group (n = 25) and (2) DB group (n = 22). Patients underwent evaluation before surgery and at 1 and 10 years postoperatively. The clinical evaluation included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Questionnaire, pivot shift test, and single hop test, as well as X-rays (anterior drawer X-rays on a Telos stress radiography). Range of motion (ROM) was assessed at 10-year follow-up. Both groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. Post hoc power analysis showed that among 30 and 226 patients would be needed for statistical significance, depending on the outcome. With the numbers available, no significant differences were observed in subjective IKDC, anterior stability (measured with Telos), and functional test outcomes (single hop test) between both groups at 1 and 10 years postoperatively. Regarding rotational instability (pivot-shift test), DB group was significantly superior (p = 0.002). Regarding ROM, no significant differences were observed between groups. No failure was registered in any of the groups. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with an autologous hamstring, both with bundles and DB, shows overall better outcomes compared with the status before surgery. DB ACLR provides better rotational control of the knee, an outcome that is maintained after 10 years.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft Combined With Modified Lemaire Technique Versus Hamstring Graft Combined With Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Clinical Comparative Matched Study With a Mean Follow-up of 5 Years From The SANTI Study Group

BACKGROUND

Additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has recently been correlated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced failure rates in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). However, no data are available on clinical outcomes and reoperation after revision ACLR using different LET procedures.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of ACL + anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction using hamstring tendon graft (HT-ALL) and a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft + modified Lemaire tenodesis procedure (BPTB-Lemaire) in the setting of revision ACLR and to determine whether ALL reconstruction is associated with an increased rate of adverse outcomes when compared with a modified Lemaire tenodesis procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Descriptive data and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected from patients who underwent revision ACLR with LET between 2009 and 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients with an HT autograft combined with ALL reconstruction (HT-ALL group) were matched in a 1:1 propensity ratio to patients with a BPTB autograft combined with a modified Lemaire LET procedure (BPTB-Lemaire group). The evaluated parameters included complications and reoperations; knee laxity tests; return to sports; and various scores, including the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury scale, Marx activity rating scale, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.

RESULTS

In total, 36 matched pairs were included in the analysis. The mean follow-up durations for the BPTB-Lemaire and HT-ALL groups were 56 ± 35 and 57 ± 23 months, respectively (P = .91). No significant differences were found in graft rupture rate (HT-ALL, 0%; BPTB-Lemaire, 11.1%; P = .13) or reoperations (HT-ALL, 8.3%; BPTB-Lemaire, 22.2%; P = .23). No specific complications with regard to LET were noted in either group. Additionally, there were no significant differences in knee laxity parameters, return to sports, or clinical scores between the groups at the final follow-up, except for the Tegner activity scale score (HT-ALL, 6.4; BPTB-Lemaire, 7.3; P = .03). HT-ALL was associated with a shorter surgical time (41.4 vs 59.8 minutes; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

HT-ALL was at least equivalent, in terms of clinical outcomes, to the more commonly performed procedure, BPTB-Lemaire. Performing ALL reconstruction in the setting of revision ACLR is therefore safe and effective.

Clinical outcomes of combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with combined reconstruction of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee.

METHODS

A search was conducted on the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, in line with the PRISMA protocol. The indexation terms used were "anterior cruciate ligament" OR "acl" AND "anterolateral ligament" AND "reconstruction." Articles that compared patients submitted to combined ACL and ALL reconstruction with those submitted to isolated reconstruction of the ACL, with levels of evidence I, II, and III, were included. Studies with follow-up of less than 2 years and articles that did not use "anatomical" techniques for ALL reconstruction, such as extraarticular tenodesis, were excluded. A meta-analysis with R software was conducted, with a random effects model, presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence level (CI) and statistically significant at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Ten articles were selected, with a total of 1495 patients, most of whom were men, of whom 674 submitted to ACL and ALL reconstruction and 821 to isolated ACL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction exhibited a statistically significant advantage in residual pivot shift (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.47, I² = 0%, p < 0.01), rerupture rate (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.62, I² = 0%, p < 0.01), Lachman test (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.86, I² = 21%, p < 0.01), and postoperative Lysholm score (MD 2.28, CI 95% 0.75-3.81, I² = 73%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction obtained better postoperative clinical outcomes when compared with isolated ACL reconstruction, especially in reducing residual pivot shift and rerupture rate.

Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Alters Lateral Compartment Contact Mechanics under Simulated Pivoting Maneuvers: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

There is concern that utilization of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) may disturb lateral compartment contact mechanics and contribute to joint degeneration.

HYPOTHESIS

ACLR augmented with LET will alter lateral compartment contact mechanics in response to simulated pivoting maneuvers.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Loads simulating a pivot shift were applied to 7 cadaveric knees (4 male; mean age, 39 ± 12 years; range, 28-54 years) using a robotic manipulator. Each knee was tested with the ACL intact, sectioned, reconstructed (via patellar tendon autograft), and, finally, after augmenting ACLR with LET (using a modified Lemaire technique) in the presence of a sectioned anterolateral ligament and Kaplan fibers. Lateral compartment contact mechanics were measured using a contact stress transducer. Outcome measures were anteroposterior location of the center of contact stress (CCS), contact force from anterior to posterior, and peak and mean contact stress.

RESULTS

On average, augmenting ACLR with LET shifted the lateral compartment CCS anteriorly compared with the intact knee and compared with ACLR in isolation by a maximum of 5.4 ± 2.3 mm (P < .001) and 6.0 ± 2.6 mm (P < .001), respectively. ACLR augmented with LET also increased contact force anteriorly on the lateral tibial plateau compared with the intact knee and compared with isolated ACLR by a maximum of 12 ± 6 N (P = .001) and 17 ± 10 N (P = .002), respectively. Compared with ACLR in isolation, ACLR augmented with LET increased peak and mean lateral compartment contact stress by 0.7 ± 0.5 MPa (P = .005) and by 0.17 ± 0.12 (P = .006), respectively, at 15° of flexion.

CONCLUSION

Under simulated pivoting loads, adding LET to ACLR anteriorized the CCS on the lateral tibial plateau, thereby increasing contact force anteriorly. Compared with ACLR in isolation, ACLR augmented with LET increased peak and mean lateral compartment contact stress at 15° of flexion.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The clinical and biological effect of increased anterior loading of the lateral compartment after LET merits further investigation. The ability of LET to anteriorize contact stress on the lateral compartment may be useful in knees with passive anterior subluxation of the lateral tibia.

Combined Anterolateral and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Improves Pivot Shift Compared With Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction as it relates to techniques, biomechanical properties, and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, OVID/Medline, and Embase were queried in July 2020. Data pertaining to (1) techniques, (2) biomechanical properties, and (3) clinical outcomes of ALL reconstruction were recorded. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses were performed for included randomized controlled trials comparing combined ALL/anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and isolated ACL reconstruction. Data from lower levels of evidence were described qualitatively, and when possible, outcomes were reported as ranges to avoid inappropriate pooling of data.

RESULTS

A total of 46 articles were identified. Sixteen were biomechanical studies, 16 were clinical outcome studies, and 14 were technique studies. Of the 16 biomechanical studies, the majority demonstrated that anterior translation, internal rotation, and pivot shift was restored with combined ACL/ALL reconstruction and superior to ACL reconstruction alone. Ten biomechanical studies reported on constraint: 4 noted overconstraint when the femoral attachment site was proximal and posterior to the lateral femoral condyle, whereas 1 reported laxity. ACL failure rates after combined ACL/ALL reconstruction ranged between 2.7% and 11.1%. The mean postoperative Lysholm score ranged between 58.7 and 98.0; mean postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee score between 57.8 and 96.3; and mean postoperative Tegner score between 4 and 8. Six outcomes were explored through meta-analysis, of which the mean difference in Lysholm scores (2.26, P < .001) and restoration of pivot shift (relative risk 1.1, P = .046) was found to favor combined ACL/ALL reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Although indications for ALL reconstruction remain heterogeneous, contemporary evidence suggests that ALL reconstruction improves pivot shift and confers comparable clinical and functional outcomes with isolated ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Surgical Timing Does Not Interfere on Clinical Outcomes in Combined Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament: A Comparative Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To compare the functional outcomes, knee stability, failure rate and complication rates of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction with hamstrings grafts between acute and chronic cases.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction with hamstrings grafts were evaluated. Patients operated on less than 8 weeks after injury were allocated to group 1, and the others were allocated to group 2. Demographic data, knee stability, and functional outcomes of the 2 groups were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients in the acute group and 96 in the chronic group were evaluated. The follow-up time was similar between the groups (28.7 ± 5.2 [24-43] months vs 29.4 ± 7.2 [24-58] months; P = 0.696). No differences were found between the groups in age, sex, trauma mechanism, presence of knee hyperextension, graft diameter, and meniscal injuries. There was no difference between the groups in the postoperative KT-1000 and in the pre- or postoperative pivot shift. The preoperative KT-1000 was higher in group 2 (7.9 ± 1.1 vs 7.4 ± 1.2; P = 0.031). There were no differences in the International Knee Documentation Committee or Lysholm. Three (2.3%) patients developed failure, 1 (2.9%) in group 1 and 2 (2.1%) in group 2. The total complication rate was 10% and did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction has similar outcomes in patients undergoing surgery in the acute and chronic phases. Patients with chronic injury have similar knee stability, functional scores, and failure rates as acute-injury patients, and patients with acute injury have no more complications than chronic patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.