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

A Call for More Studies Evaluating Posttraumatic Knee Osteoarthritis in Patients Undergoing Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Lateral Extra-Articular Stabilization

Author's Reply

Techniques in Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: As Simple as ABC, or Putting the Cart Before the Horse?

Author's Reply

Static patellofemoral alignment in anterior cruciate ligament deficient knees; a retrospective analysis with magnetic resonance imaging

Common Musculoskeletal Disorders in Women

Anterior cruciate ligament repair and peripheral nerve blocks: time to change our practice?

Regarding “Acute Proximal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears: Outcomes After Arthroscopic Suture Anchor Repair Versus Anatomic Single-Bundle Reconstruction”

Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery

Double bundle or double trouble?

Author Reply to “Regarding ‘Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes After Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using an Adjustable-Loop Cortical Suspension Device With Retensioning and Knot Tying’”

Editorial Commentary: During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures Have Risks and Should be Reserved for Proper Indications: Do Not LET ALL Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions Be the Same

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: 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.

Regarding “Hip and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Crossroads”