Clinical Outcomes for Arthroscopic Anterior Talofibular Ligament Repair After Suture Anchor Insertion Through the Anterolateral Portal vs the Lateral Accessory Portal.

Abstract

Two types of suture anchor insertion pathways (anterolateral portal vs lateral accessory portal) are used in arthroscopic anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) repair. However, it is not clear which one is the better choice. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of these 2 suture anchor insertion pathways when performing arthroscopic ATFL lasso-loop repair for the treatment of chronic lateral ankle instability (CLAI). From 2019 to 2021, patients with CLAI who underwent arthroscopic ATFL lasso-loop repair were retrospectively reviewed and divided into the anterolateral portal (ALP) group and the lateral accessory portal (LAP) group. A 1:1 propensity score matching was used to control confounding factors based on age, sex, body mass index, follow-up duration, preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, and Tegner score (ALP group, n = 26; LAP group, n = 26). Karlsson score, VAS score, Tegner score, operation time, anterior drawer test results, patient symptoms, and magnetic resonance (MR) evaluation of ATFL quality were used to describe the outcomes. The patient characteristics and follow-up durations were similar between the 2 groups. After a mean follow-up duration of 28.8 ± 2.3 months, the ALP group had significantly better Karlsson score, VAS score, and Tegner score improvement than the LAP group, with fewer symptoms. Seven patients in the LAP group still had a feeling of ankle instability, and 3 of them exhibited ankle laxity. In this study, we found that inserting the suture anchor through the anterolateral portal was associated with better outcomes compared to that through the lateral accessory portal when performing arthroscopic ATFL lasso-loop repair for CLAI patients. The improvement was greater for pain relief and function and was associated with a lower frequency of subjective ankle instability.