Reinforced iliotibial tenodesis for chronic anterolateral instability of the knee: a 6-year follow-up

Clinical outcomes of extra-articular tenodesis/anterolateral reconstruction in the ACL injured knee

PURPOSE

The role of concomitant extra-articular procedures in improving the outcome of ACL reconstruction has experienced a recent resurgence in interest. The aim of this article is to highlight the differences in philosophies and outcomes of historical lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and contemporary, anterolateral reconstruction.

METHODS

A narrative review was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE using the keywords "lateral extra-articular tenodesis" and "anterolateral ligament reconstruction".

RESULTS

Results of search strategy: Thirty-seven studies [13 reporting clinical outcomes of isolated LET in ACL deficient knees and 24 comparing isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with ACLR + LET] and 1 study on anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction were identified as relevant and included in the review. Results of literature review: Isolated extra-articular reconstructions are rarely performed in contemporary practice. They are associated with a high rate of persistent anterior instability and early degenerative change. Combined ACL reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tenodeses results in a significant reduction in the prevalence of residual pivot shift, but the majority of the studies do not demonstrate any significant difference with respect to patient-reported outcome measures and return to sport. Although several authors report a trend towards decreased graft rupture rates, significant differences were not demonstrated in most studies. In a single clinical study, combined anatomic ACL and anterolateral ligament reconstruction was reported to be associated with a threefold reduction in graft rupture rates and improved return to sport compared to isolated ACL graft choices.

CONCLUSIONS

Historically performed, combined ACL reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tenodeses are associated with improved knee kinematics. Although trends towards decreased graft rupture rates are reported by several authors, the majority did not demonstrate a significant difference, likely as a result of small and underpowered studies using post-operative immobilisation and delayed rehabilitation protocols. More recently, combined ACLR and ALL reconstruction has been shown to be associated with significant improvements in graft failure and return to sport rates when compared to isolated ACLR. However, these results are from a single clinical series with only medium-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tenodesis does not result in an increased rate of osteoarthritis: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis

PURPOSE

The role of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LEAT) as an augment to primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains controversial. However, concerns exist regarding the risk of development of osteoarthritis due to over constraint of the knee. To systematically review the literature to analyse the long-term incidence of osteoarthritis in patients who had an LEAT performed in isolation or in combination with intra-articular ACLR for the treatment of ACL deficiency.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched five databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized comparative, and retrospective cohort studies (CS) with long-term radiological follow-up of patients with ACL deficiency treated with ACLR combined with LEAT or LEAT in isolation. Risk of bias was performed using a modified Downs & Black's checklist. The primary outcome was the development of osteoarthritis. The studies were divided into those with moderate/severe osteoarthritis at between 5 to 10 years and >10-year follow-up. The rate of meniscal pathology at the time of the index surgery was recorded. A best evidence synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Eight studies reported on 421 patients in which an LEAT procedure was carried out. There were two high-quality RCTs and six low-quality CS. The follow-up was between 5- and 10-years in 5 studies and >10-years in 3. The presence of moderate/severe osteoarthritis was not detected in three studies and was found in 4/44 (9%) and 13/70 (18.6%) patients in the other two. At 11 year follow-up, one study demonstrated no osteoarthritis, while the other two studies reported rates of 54/100 (54%) and 17/24 (71%) respectively at >24 years. In the latter two cases, the rate of meniscal pathology was >50%. A best evidence synthesis revealed that there was insufficient evidence that the addition of a LEAT to an ACLR resulted in an increased rate of osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSION

The best available evidence would suggest that the addition of a LEAT to ACLR does not result in an increase rate of osteoarthritis of the knee. In knees that have undergone a combined ACLR and LEAT, the incidence of osteoarthritis was low up to 11 years but increased thereafter. The presence of meniscal injury at the index surgery was reported to be greater predictor of the development of osteoarthritis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.