Anterolateral Tenodesis or Anterolateral Ligament Complex Reconstruction: Effect of Flexion Angle at Graft Fixation When Combined With ACL Reconstruction

Is the anterolateral ligament the smoking gun to explain rotational knee laxity or just vaporware?

Clinical results of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction have demonstrated a significant reduction in ACL graft rupture rates and improved rates of return to sports compared with isolated ACL reconstruction1. This finding is supported by laboratory studies that have demonstrated that combined ACL reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tenodesis procedures protect the ACL graft by load-sharing with it and by more reliably restoring normal knee kinematics compared with isolated ACL reconstruction. The ACL graft is formed from a tripled semitendinosus tendon and a single strand of gracilis tendon. The femoral tunnel is drilled to provide an anatomic location intra-articularly and to exit the femur just posterior and proximal to the lateral epicondyle. The additional length of gracilis therefore exits the femoral tunnel at the anatomic origin of the ALL and is then routed (under the iliotibial band [ITB]) through a tibial tunnel, and back to the femoral origin, to reconstruct the ALL. Many different types of nonanatomic lateral extra-articular tenodesis procedures have been reported. The most frequently performed were the Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures; however, these, and others, were widely abandoned after poor results were reported in the 1980s. ALL reconstruction differs from other lateral extra-articular tenodesis-type procedures because the procedure is anatomically based and can be percutaneously performed. Nonanatomic procedures (typically with a strand of ITB passed under the lateral collateral ligament [LCL]) have been reported to be associated with overconstraint, early arthritis, and an increased risk of infection2-5. In contrast, ALL reconstruction has been shown to restore normal knee kinematics and to avoid overconstraint when correctly fixed in full extension and neutral rotation6. The main concern with any type of lateral extra-articular tenodesis is based on historical reports of poor outcomes2,3. However, a recent study has demonstrated that combined ACL and ALL reconstruction is associated with a reoperation rate that is comparable with the rate seen after isolated ACL reconstruction, and it has a very low rate of complications7. This makes a compelling argument for anatomic ALL and ACL reconstruction being the procedure of choice when considering an extra-articular procedure. This is further supported by the fact that, even though previous studies have demonstrated a trend toward reduced ACL graft rupture with nonanatomic lateral extra-articular tenodesis procedures, they have not shown a significant improvement in outcomes8. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction is currently the only type of lateral extra-articular procedure that has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the risk of ACL graft rupture and improve the rate of return to sports1.

Background:Graft rupture rate, return to sport and persistent rotational instability remain a concern postoperatively following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The anterolateral ligament (ALL) has recently been shown to act as a lateral knee stabilizer that helps improve rotational stability. To improve functional and clinical outcomes, a combined ACL reconstruction with an associated ALL reconstruction has been proposed.Purpose:The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the combined ACL and ALL reconstruction.Methods:A literature search in PubMed was performed and papers reporting on clinical outcomes after combined ACL and ALL reconstruction were identified. The inclusion criteria was a minimum 2-year follow-up.Results:Five studies were included in the review. The overall graft failure rate in patients with ACL and ALL reconstruction was <3% at 2 years minimum after surgery. Comparison analysis in a high-risk population demonstrated that the graft failure rate in combined ACL and ALL reconstruction was 2.5 times lower than with isolated bone-patella tendon-bone graft and 3.1 times lower than with isolated hamstring graft. The medial meniscal repair failure rate was also 2 times lower in the combined ACL and ALL reconstruction group compared with isolated ACL reconstruction. Return to sport and functional outcomes did not show any significant difference between the groups. The rate of reoperations was not increased in patients with combined ACL and ALL reconstruction.Conclusions:Overall, combined ACL and ALL reconstruction provides promising results that may improve graft rupture rates and meniscal repair failure rates, while maintaining excellent functional outcomes.

Research on surgical strategies to minimize tunnel collisions in combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) using the modified transtibial technique (MTT) and anterolateral augmentation is limited, unlike with independent tunnel drilling techniques. To analyze the optimal drill orientations for the anterolateral ligament (ALL) femoral tunnel to minimize tunnel collisions and reduce damage to surrounding structures during combined ACLR with MTT and anterolateral augmentation procedures, accounting for far-cortex drilling (FCD) of the ALL femoral tunnel required for graft fixation. Descriptive laboratory study. Three-dimensional reconstructed femoral models of patients who underwent ACLR with MTT between 2015 and 2018 were used. Geometric factors of femoral models were analyzed, and virtual ALL femoral tunnels were simulated to evaluate 45 drilling combinations. To assess potential damage to surrounding structures associated with ALL femoral tunnel drilling, femoral cortical violation caused by the ALL femoral tunnel itself was assessed under each drilling condition, whereas tunnel trajectories were analyzed to classify drilling conditions according to FCD. In addition, the minimum distance between the ACL and ALL femoral tunnels (MDBT) and the tunnel collision rate were evaluated. A total of 27 patients were analyzed. In scenarios where FCD was not required for ALL graft femoral fixation, the optimal drill orientation for the ALL femoral tunnel was within the range of coronal -40° to -20°, eliminating cortex violation and tunnel collisions (mean MDBT, 9 ± 4.1 mm; collision rate 0%). When FCD was required for ALL graft femoral fixation, the optimal drill orientation was axial 40° and coronal 10°, resulting in the longest MDBT without the risk of femoral cortex violation (MDBT, 4.9 ± 3.5 mm; collision rate, 7.4%). During the combined surgeries for ACLR using MTT and anterolateral augmentation procedures, the optimal drill orientation of the ALL femoral tunnel was within the range of coronal -40° to -20° for techniques not requiring FCD and axial 40° and coronal 10° for those requiring FCD. This study provides practical surgical guidance for optimizing ALL femoral tunnel orientation during combined ACLR using MTT and anterolateral augmentation. By accounting for whether FCD is required for ALL graft femoral fixation, the findings may help surgeons minimize tunnel collision and reduce the risk of femoral cortical violation, thereby potentially decreasing procedure-related complications.

Background:Tunnel collision during ligament surgery may impact graft integrity and fixation, potentially influencing surgical outcomes. Identifying the optimal anterolateral ligament (ALL) femoral tunnel orientation is therefore important to improve the overall success of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) and ALL reconstruction (ALLR).Purpose:To investigate whether the orientation of the ALL femoral tunnel in combined ACLR and ALLR affects the risk of femoral tunnel collision and subsequent clinical outcomes.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Medical records of patients who underwent combined ACLR and ALLR from 2018 to 2022 were reviewed, and those with at least 2 years of follow-up were evaluated. Patients were classified based on the orientation of the ALL femoral tunnel as targeted at the time of surgery, with tunnels created at 30° axial and 30° coronal (Group P) or 0° axial and −40° coronal (Group D). Between-group comparisons were conducted for radiological parameters—including the characteristics of the ACL and ALL femoral tunnels, tunnel collision rates, minimal distance between the tunnels (MDBT), and collision volumes—assessed using 3-dimensional knee models from postoperative computed tomography scans. In addition, functional scores, knee laxity, and intraoperative data were analyzed.Results:A total of 64 patients were included. Group D exhibited a significantly lower tunnel collision rate compared with group P (68.8% and 6.3% in groups P and D, respectively; P < .001), along with a larger MDBT (–5.5 ± 2.5 mm and 3.7 ± 4 mm in groups P and D, respectively; P < .001) and a smaller collision volume (92.2 ± 89.5 mm3 and 1.2 ± 3.5 mm3, respectively; P < .001). No significant differences were observed between groups in functional scores or knee laxity at the final follow-up. However, the surgical time for cases without combined meniscal procedures was significantly longer in group P (P = .025). Additional comparative analysis newly categorized by tunnel collision also revealed no differences regarding the surgical outcomes; however, surgical time was significantly longer in cases where tunnel collision occurred (P < .001 for both the overall cohort and cases without combined meniscal procedures).Conclusion:Distally directed drilling for the ALL femoral tunnel reduced the risk of tunnel collision in combined ACL and ALL procedures without compromising clinical outcomes. Although the tunnel collision itself did not affect surgical outcomes, distal drilling significantly reduced surgical time by minimizing collision risk, thereby optimizing the surgical process.

To compare the outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with those of combined ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction in ACL-deficient knees. The objective of this study wasto improve knowledge regarding the treatment of ACL-deficient knees with combined ACL and ALL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction has been hypothesized to result in better clinical and functional outcomes than isolated ACL reconstruction (ACLR). One-hundred and seven adult male athletes with ACL tears and high-grade pivot shifts were randomized into two groups. Those in group A (n = 54) underwent ACLR, while those in group B (n = 53) underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction. The median age was 26 (18-40) and 24 (18-33) years in groups A and B, respectively, and the median follow-up was 60 (55-65) months. Physical examination findings, instrumented knee laxity tested using a KT-1000 arthrometer, and International Knee Documentation Committee Scale (IKDC) scores were used to evaluate the outcomes. One-hundred and two patients were available for follow-up: 52 in group A and 50 in group B. Postoperatively, the pivot shift was normal in 43 (82.7%) and 48 (96%) patients in groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.001). The median instrumented knee laxity was 2.5 ± 0.7 (1.2-6.1) mm in patients in group A and 1.2 ± 0.7 (1.2-3.2) mm in patients in group B (p < 0.001). Additionally, 44 (84.6%) patients in group A had normal IKDC scores and 3 (5.8%) had nearly normal scores, while 48 (96.0%) patients in group B had normal IKDC scores and 2 (4%) had nearly normal scores (p < 0.001). Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction, compared with isolated ACLR resulted in favourable clinical and functional outcomes, as demonstrated by decreased rotational instability and instrumented knee laxity, a lower graft rupture rate and better postoperative IKDC scores. 1.

Background: Recent biomechanical studies have demonstrated that an extra-articular lateral knee structure, most recently referred to as the anterolateral ligament (ALL), contributes to overall rotational stability of the knee. However, the effect of anatomic ALL reconstruction (ALLR) in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) has not been biomechanically investigated or validated. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical function of anatomic ALLR in the setting of a combined ACL and ALL injury. More specifically, this investigation focused on the effect of ALLR on resultant rotatory stability when performed in combination with concomitant ACLR. It was hypothesized that ALLR would significantly reduce internal rotation and axial plane translation laxity during a simulated pivot-shift test compared with isolated ACLR. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were evaluated with a 6 degrees of freedom robotic system. Knee kinematics were evaluated with simulated clinical examinations including a simulated pivot-shift test consisting of coupled 10-N·m valgus and 5-N·m internal rotation torques, a 5-N·m internal rotation torque, and an 88-N anterior tibial load. Kinematic differences between ACLR with an intact ALL, ACLR with ALLR, and ACLR with a deficient ALL were compared with the intact state. Single-bundle ACLR tunnels and ALLR tunnels were placed anatomically according to previous quantitative anatomic attachment descriptions. Results: Combined anatomic ALLR and ACLR significantly improved the rotatory stability of the knee compared with isolated ACLR in the face of a concurrent ALL deficiency. During a simulated pivot-shift test, ALLR significantly reduced internal rotation and axial plane tibial translation when compared with ACLR with an ALL deficiency. Isolated ACLR for the treatment of a combined ACL and ALL injury was not able to restore stability of the knee, resulting in a significant increase in residual internal rotation laxity. ALLR did not affect anterior tibial translation; no significant differences were observed between the varying ALL conditions with ACLR except between ACLR with an intact ALL and ACLR with a deficient ALL at 0° of flexion. Conclusion: In the face of a combined ACL and ALL deficiency, concurrent ACLR and ALLR significantly improved the rotatory stability of the knee compared with solely reconstructing the ACL. Clinical Relevance: Significant increases in residual internal rotation and laxity during the pivot-shift test may exist in both acute and chronic settings of an ACL deficiency and in patients treated with isolated ACLR for a combined ACL and ALL deficiency. For this subset of patients, surgical treatment of the ALL, in addition to ACLR, should be considered to restore knee stability.

The purpose of the current randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction and to compare them with those of isolated ACL reconstruction. The hypothesis was that combined ACL and ALL reconstruction will result in superior clinical outcomes in terms of the rotational stability of the knee. This prospective RCT included 57 patients (44 men and 13 women, mean age = 31 ± 7.1 years) who underwent ACL reconstruction either isolated (Group I: 25 patients) or combined with ALL reconstruction (Group II: 32 patients). The evaluation of the patients was done preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months including a clinical examination (Lachman's test, Pivot shift's test, and Rolimeter differential anterior laxity), an objective clinical scores (objective: the International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] score) and a subjective clinical scores (subjective: IKDC's score, Lysholm's score, and Tegner's activity score). Postoperative complications of all the patients were recorded. There was a significant difference between the study groups at all follow-up intervals when evaluating the postoperative pivot shift test (p < 0.05) with a superior rotational stability in the group of combined ACL and ALL reconstruction. At the final follow-up evaluation, 36% of the patients from Group I and 6.2% in Group II had a grade I positive pivot shift test (p < 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of patients with a grade A IKDC objective score (p < 0.05) at the 6- and 12-month follow-up intervals (p = 0.007). There was a significant difference concerning the IKDC subjective score between the two study groups in favor of the combined ACL and ALL reconstruction group at 12 months postoperatively (p = 0.048). Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction technique was demonstrated to be effective in obtaining a superior control of the rotational knee instability and to improve the clinical objective and subjective outcomes when compared with isolated ACL reconstruction in sports patients with high-grade pivoting shifts.

Author's Reply

Antero Lateral Ligament Reconstruction by Modified Sonnery Cottet Technique

ObjectivesThis study aims to compare the outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and combined anterolateral ligament (ALL) suture tape augmentation (STA) and ACL reconstruction after a minimum follow-up of two years.Patients and methodsThis retrospective study included 63 patients (36 males, 27 females; mean age 27.8±4.0; range, 19 to 35 years) who had unilateral ACL injury and participated in pivoting sports and were randomly assigned to undergo either isolated ACL reconstruction (Group 1, n=33) or combined ACL reconstruction and ALL STA (Group 2, n=30) between January 2015 and February 2018. The presence of an associated meniscal injury, chondral pathology, contralateral ACL rupture, and residual pivot shift; subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee scores; Cincinnati and Lysholm functional scores; KT-1000 measurements; and graft rupture rate were evaluated.ResultsPatients were followed for a minimum of two years. The groups did not differ with respect to age, sex, side, time from injury to surgery, postoperative follow-up time, ACL graft size, contralateral ACL rupture, graft size, partial meniscectomy, chondral pathology or preoperative physical examination results. A total of 9.1% of the patients in Group 1 and 0% of those in Group 2 presented postoperative positive pivot shift (p=0.357). The graft failure rate was 6.06% (n=2) in Group 1 and 0% in Group 2 (p=0.270). In the final evaluation, compared with Group 1, Group 2 showed better anteroposterior clinical stability, as evaluated by KT-1000 arthrometry (p=0.006). Although better results were observed in Group 2, the clinical evaluation results for postoperative function did not differ significantly between groups.ConclusionCombined ALL STA and ACL reconstruction was found to be effective in improving subjective and objective outcomes. Nevertheless, these findings were not significantly superior to those of isolated ACL reconstruction with hamstring grafts, except for the side-to-side differential anterior laxity testing results.

To evaluate the results of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction in patients with chronic ACL injury. It was hypothesized that patients who underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction would exhibit less residual laxity and better clinical outcomes. Two groups of patients were evaluated and compared retrospectively. Both groups consisted only of patients with chronic (more than 12months) ACL injuries. Patients in group 1 underwent anatomical intra-articular reconstruction of the ACL and patients in group 2 underwent anatomic intra-articular ACL reconstruction combined with ALL reconstruction. The presence of associated meniscal injury, the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm functional outcome scores in the postoperative period, KT-1000 evaluation, the presence of residual pivot shift and graft rupture rate were evaluated. One hundred and one patients who underwent reconstruction of chronic ACL injuries were evaluated. The median follow-up was 26 (24-29)months for group 1 and 25 (24-28)months for group 2. There were no significant differences between groups regarding gender, age, duration of injury until reconstruction, follow-up time or presence of associated meniscal injuries in the preoperative period. Regarding functional outcome scores, patients in group 2 presented better results on both the IKDC (p = 0.0013) and the Lysholm (p < 0.0001) evaluations. In addition, patients in group 2 had better KT-1000 evaluation (p = 0.048) and a lower pivot shift rate at physical examination, presenting only 9.1% positivity versus 35.3% in the isolated ACL reconstruction (p = 0.011). Regarding re-ruptures, group 1 presented 5 (7.3%) cases, and group 2 presented no cases. The combined ACL and ALL reconstruction in patients with chronic ACL injury is an effective and safety solution and leads to good functional outcomes with no increase in complication rate. The clinical relevance of this finding is the possibility to indicate this type of procedure when patients present with more than 12months after injury for surgery. Level III.

Objectives:To determine the stabilizing role of the anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) and the modified Lemaire lateral extraarticular tenodesis (LET) performed in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and to determine if one of these two procedures was superior to the other.Methods:Six non paired cadaveric knees were tested with a 6 degrees of freedom robotic system (KUKA Robotics). Internal rotation and anterior tibial translation were measured between 0 and 90° knee flexion after applying 5 N-m Torque and a 134-N anterior load, respectively. A full kinematics assessment was performed in each following conditions: intact knee, after section of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), after section of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) and Kaplan fibers, after isolated ACLR, after combined ACLR+LET and ACLR+ALLR. ALLR was performed using Gracilis tendon while central strip of the ilio-tibial band was used for the modified Lemaire procedure.These different states were compared using a Tukey paired comparison test.Results:In combined ACL and anterolateral deficient knee, anterior translation and internal rotation remained significantly increased after isolated ACLR compared to intact knee (+2.33 ± 1.44 mm and +1.98 ± 1.06°; p > 0.01). On the other hand, the addition of an ALLR or a modified Lemaire LET to the ACLR allowed to restore anterior translation and internal rotation to values similar to the intact knee. Finally, the two anterolateral procedures had not significantly different values in both tests. This difference was 0.67 ± 1.46 mm for anterior translation (p=0.79) and 0.11 ± 1.11° for internal rotation (p=0.99).Conclusion:In ACL and anterolateral deficient knee, combined ACLR and anterolateral reconstruction allowed restoration of native stability of the knee in anterior translation and internal rotation contrary to isolated ACLR.Additionally, both types of extra-articular reconstruction, ALLR or modified Lemaire procedure, were similar in terms of restoring knee kinematics and neither overconstrained the knee.

Background: Anterolateral soft tissue structures of the knee have a role in controlling anterolateral rotational laxity, and they may be damaged at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. Purpose: To compare the kinematic effects of anterolateral operative procedures in combination with intra-articular ACL reconstruction for combined ACL plus anterolateral–injured knees. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twelve cadaveric knees were tested in a 6 degrees of freedom rig using an optical tracking system to record the kinematics through 0° to 90° of knee flexion with no load, anterior drawer, internal rotation, and combined loading. Testing was first performed in ACL-intact, ACL-deficient, and combined ACL plus anterolateral–injured (distal deep insertions of the iliotibial band and the anterolateral ligament [ALL] and capsule cut) states. Thereafter, ACL reconstruction was performed alone and in combination with the following: modified MacIntosh tenodesis, modified Lemaire tenodesis passed both superficial and deep to the lateral collateral ligament, and ALL reconstruction. Anterolateral grafts were fixed at 30° of knee flexion with both 20 and 40 N of tension. Statistical analysis used repeated-measures analyses of variance and paired t tests with Bonferroni adjustments. Results: ACL reconstruction alone failed to restore native knee kinematics in combined ACL plus anterolateral–injured knees (P < .05 for all). All combined reconstructions with 20 N of tension, except for ALL reconstruction (P = .002-.01), restored anterior translation. With 40 N of tension, the superficial Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures overconstrained the anterior laxity in deep flexion. Only the deep Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures—with 20 N of tension—restored rotational kinematics to the intact state (P > .05 for all), while the ALL underconstrained and the superficial Lemaire overconstrained internal rotation. The same procedures with 40 N of tension led to similar findings. Conclusion: In a combined ACL plus anterolateral–injured knee, ACL reconstruction alone failed to restore intact knee kinematics. The addition of either the deep Lemaire or MacIntosh tenodesis tensioned with 20 N, however, restored native knee kinematics. Clinical Relevance: The current study indicates that unaddressed anterolateral injuries, in the presence of an ACL deficiency, result in abnormal knee kinematics that is not restored if only treated with intra-articular ACL reconstruction. Both the modified MacIntosh and modified deep Lemaire tenodeses (with 20 N of tension) restored native knee kinematics at time zero.

Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction and Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis Similarly Improve Knee Stability After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Study