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

Abstract

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.