Abstract
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been shown to have highly favourable outcomes in many patients; however, failure always remains a concern. Failure of ACLR can occur as a result of traumatic graft rupture, poor biologic incorporation of the graft or technical error. Clinical failure without recurrent tears may present with residual rotatory laxity, unacceptable stiffness or pain. Underlying factors contributing to the index ACL failure such as tunnel malposition, unaddressed malalignment or other ligamentous injury must be diagnosed and addressed. With recent studies highlighting the success of anterolateral augmentation in selected primary ACLR scenarios, there has been renewed interest in concomitant anterolateral procedures with revision ACLR. Lateral augmentation procedures including lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) have recently gained attention as a method to help address rotatory instability in the knee and improve outcomes in revision ACLR. LET combined with revision ACLR has been shown to increase post-operative stability and decrease graft failure rates with minimal associated morbidity. The senior author prefers the modified Lemaire technique for LET in selected revision ACLR scenarios.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Anterior cruciate ligament
- Revision
- Lateral extra-articular tenodesis
- Anterolateral ligament
- Anterolateral complex
Case 1
A 21-year-old female soccer player initially suffered a non-contact knee injury resulting in an ACL tear. She underwent a successful ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft, had an uneventful recovery and returned to sport at 8 months post-op. At 10 months post-op, she suffered a repeat non-contact injury with graft failure. Clinical examination demonstrated full range of motion with a grade 2 Lachman, grade 2 pivot shift, intact PCL and collateral ligament exams. No significant recurvatum was seen on the examination. Radiographs demonstrated appropriate tunnel placement with no widening. Given the patient’s young age, activity level and role as an elite soccer player, the decision was made to augment the revision with an extra-articular tenodesis. She underwent a single-stage revision ACL reconstruction with BTB autograft and LET (Fig. 15.1). Her recovery was uneventful, and full return to sport was accomplished.
Case 2
A 24-year-old male football player suffered a non-contact football injury, resulting in an ACL rupture and an irreparable medial meniscus tear. He underwent ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft and a very small partial medial meniscectomy, removing less than 10% of the meniscal tissue and leaving a sufficient rim of more than 5 mm. The patient then suffered a second deceleration injury 6 months post-op, resulting in graft failure without a change in the status of the meniscus. He underwent revision ACL with BTB autograft. At 10 months post-revision ACL reconstruction, he was playing baseball and suffered another twisting injury resulting in a second re-tear.
Clinical examination at the time demonstrated neutral limb alignment, excellent muscle tone, grade 3 Lachman, grade 3 pivot shift, no external rotation laxity and intact collaterals. Lateral radiographs demonstrated an increased posterior slope of 14 degrees without significant recurvatum on exam (Fig. 15.2a). Given the multiple graft failures, the decision was made to address slope and ACL deficiency concurrently. The patient underwent anterior closing wedge high tibial osteotomy with revision ACL reconstruction with quadriceps tendon autograft and LET (Fig. 15.2b, c). LET in this case was especially helpful, given the potential for hyper-extension after anterior closing wedge high tibial osteotomy. As the meniscal deficiency was minute, we did not indicate the patient for medial meniscus allograft transplantation. He has subsequently returned to athletics with no residual instability.
Introduction
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) has generally favourable outcomes. However, there remains a subset of patients who go on to fail [1, 2]. Graft failure can occur as a result of traumatic rupture, biologic factors (failure of graft to incorporate), technical errors of tunnel placement or unrecognized concomitant laxity [3]. Clinical failure may present with residual rotatory laxity resulting in instability, unacceptable stiffness or pain. A systematic review in 2011 suggested a 19% incidence of increased anterolateral rotatory laxity (pivot shift grade 2 and higher) after ACL reconstruction [4].
Undiagnosed concomitant injury to the anterolateral complex (ALC), which includes the iliotibial band (ITB) and anterolateral ligament (ALL), has been proposed to cause anterolateral rotatory instability (ALRI) that leads to increased failure of ACLR. ALRI is accentuated by other ligamentous deficiencies, particularly the ACL [5]. The role of the ALC, and the ALL in particular, has been an area of intense controversy and recent study in regard to knee stability in recent years [6, 7].
Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) procedures are a diverse group of nonanatomic operations that have been described to help control ALRI. Additionally, LET has been proposed to protect the ACL graft from strain during the initial healing period [5, 8]. Definitive evidence supporting the indications for LET procedures and long-term outcomes in revision ACLR are still emerging. The ALC Consensus Group, however, met in 2018 to discuss the available literature regarding the ALC and LET procedures. Based on the current evidence, they concluded that they were unable to make definitive recommendations on when to add LET to ACLR. The group suggested that LET procedures may be indicated in the context of revision ACLR and in primary ACLR in patients who present with a high-grade pivot shift and generalized ligamentous laxity and in young patients wishing to return to pivot sports [9]. Recent studies support these indications in the primary ACLR setting [10, 11]. The aim of the current chapter is to examine the relevant anatomy and biomechanics in ALRI and the role of LET in revision ACL reconstruction.
Relevant Anatomy
The ALC is comprised of the superficial iliotibial band (ITB), the deep ITB and its capsulo-osseous layer attachments from the distal femur to the proximal tibia and the ALL, a ligamentous structure within the anterolateral capsule [7, 9].
The anterolateral ligament (ALL) was first described by Segond in 1879 [12]. The ALL is a ligamentous structure within the anterolateral capsule of the knee. The ALL is best visualized with the knee flexed at 60 degrees and the tibia maximally internally rotated after sectioning the ACL [6]. In this position, the firm fibres can be seen running from the lateral epicondyle to the femur to the anterolateral portion of the tibia.
Differing dissection techniques and difficulty distinguishing the ALL from the anterolateral capsule can make the ALL challenging to identify [7, 9, 13]. Therefore, the prevalence of the ALL in the knee in cadaveric studies has ranged from 45% to 100% [13,14,15,16]. Additionally, authors have also described the ALL as being under the ITB and within the anterolateral capsule [17].
Histologically, there again is controversy observed in the literature. A 2020 cadaveric study in paediatric knees demonstrated that there was no discernible ligamentous tissue found within the ALC with histological, immunohistochemical or molecular analyses [18]. In adult cadaveric studies, however, others have found the ALL to be differentiated from the capsular tissue as it is comprised of dense connective tissue collagen bundles which are more consistent with ligamentous tissue [7, 19]. This band of connective tissues is often surrounded by loose synovial tissue [20]. Anti-human neurofilament protein stains have also revealed a large amount of peripheral nerves and mechanoreceptors suggesting a potential proprioceptive role of the ALL [21].
Biomechanical Rationale for Lateral Augmentation
Multiple cadaveric studies have investigated the role of the ALC on knee stability [22,23,24,25,26]. The anterolateral structures have been demonstrated to act as secondary stabilizers to anterolateral rotation in the knee. The ALL begins to load share beyond the physiological limits of the ACL [25, 26]. This indicates that the ALL has little role in controlling internal rotation in the ACL intact knee. A 2015 study demonstrated that sectioning of the ALL was observed to result in a statistically significant increase in anterior translation and internal rotation after the ACL was sectioned during an early-phase pivot shift [22].
In knees with combined ALL and ACL injury, ACL reconstruction alone has been shown to be inadequate at restoring anterolateral stability, resulting in significant residual rotational laxity [23, 27]. A 2016 in vitro robotic study examined the biomechanical effect of reconstruction of the ALL on rotatory stability when performed in combination with ACLR [23]. Kinematic differences between ACLR with an intact ALL, ACLR with ALL reconstruction using semitendinosus allograft and ACLR with a deficient ALL were compared with the intact state. In this study, combined anatomic ALL reconstruction and ACLR significantly improved the rotatory stability of the knee compared with isolated ACLR in the face of a concurrent ALL deficiency. Additionally, during pivot shift testing, ALL reconstruction significantly reduced internal rotation and axial plane tibial translation when compared with ACLR alone with an ALL deficiency [23].
When examining the effects of LET on in vitro knee kinematics, a 2016 study demonstrated that both the modified Lemaire procedure and modified MacIntosh procedure restored rotational kinematics to the intact knee state [27]. Similar results were demonstrated in a 2019 study that examined multiple types of lateral augmentation procedures on the ACL- and ALC-deficient knee. In this study, the ACL and ALC (including ALL, capsule, and Kaplan fibres) were sectioned. After ACLR, the knees underwent five different lateral augmentation procedures. It was again noted that ACLR alone could not restore normal knee kinematics. The study found that ALL reconstruction and Ellison procedures were able to restore physiologic knee kinematics. Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures resulted in supra-physiologic constraint in this study [28].
Types of LET Procedures
Multiple different LET procedures have been described in the literature. Many were initially proposed for the treatment of ACL-deficient knees in isolation, without concomitant intra-articular ACLR [29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Many of these techniques have also undergone modifications over the years. The original Lemaire technique forms the basis for many LET procedures [5]. The original Lemaire technique described using a 1.5 × 18 cm strip of ITB autograft [29]. This graft was left attached distally at Gerdy’s tubercle and passed under the fibular collateral ligament (FCL) and through a femoral bone tunnel back under the FCL and anchored in a tibial bone tunnel at Gerdy’s tubercle (Fig. 15.3a). The current modified Lemaire technique uses a single 7–8 cm strip of ITB left attached to Gerdy’s tubercle, passed under the FCL and secured to the femur within a bone tunnel or via a staple/suture anchor (see author’s technique and Fig. 15.4a–g) [30, 31].
The Ellison procedure uses an ITB graft that is detached distally from its insertion with the use of a bone block [32]. The graft is passed deep to the FCL and anchored just anterior to Gerdy’s tubercle with a staple (Fig. 15.3b). A capsular plication is also performed in conjunction to the tenodesis deep to the FCL.
The original MacIntosh procedure is similar to the Lemaire in that it uses an ITB autograft left attached distally to Gerdy’s tubercle [35]. The 20 × 2 cm graft is passed deep to the FCL, through a subperiosteal tunnel behind the FCL, then through a proximal tunnel in the intermuscular septum. The graft is then sutured back onto itself (Fig. 15.3c). A modification of this procedure has been described where a 2 cm strip of ITB is passed deep to the proximal FCL where it is sutured. It is then passed over top of itself and secured at Gerdy’s tubercle with the use of a staple [33]. The MacIntosh technique has also been described as a combined intra- and extra-articular technique [34]. In this “over-the-top” procedure, a 25 × 4 cm strip of ITB is left attached distally to Gerdy’s tubercle. It is passed deep to the FCL. It is then passed subperiosteally anterior to the intermuscular septum and then over the femoral condyle and into the knee to be used for ACLR.
Patient Assessment and Indications for LET in Revision ACLR
LET procedures should be considered in the revision setting when other factors predisposing a patient to graft failure have been excluded. Patients with primary graft failure should be investigated with complete history, physical examination and appropriate imaging.
History should include details of primary surgery including arthroscopic findings, post-operative rehabilitation course, time to return to sport and onset of recurrent instability (insidious versus acute traumatic rupture). Additionally, delineating the patients sporting and activity aspirations can help guide treatment.
Physical examination begins with assessment of weight-bearing alignment and gait abnormalities. In-depth assessment of collateral and cruciate ligaments including posterolateral, posteromedial, anterolateral and anteromedial corners should be completed to assess overall soft tissue integrity. When considering LET, particular attention should be paid to residual ALRI. Evidence of high-grade pivot shift test is indicative of ALRI [36, 37].
Appropriate imaging should include plain radiographs (weight-bearing films including hip-to-ankle alignment films), MRI and CT scan. Plain radiographs provisionally assess tunnel position and size and existing hardware. Alignment radiographs can also identify bony malalignment that can contribute to graft failure such as increased tibial slope or coronal malalignment with particular attention paid to asymmetry [38]. MRI can further reveal ligamentous or meniscal deficiency that contributes to residual instability. CT is regarded as the gold standard to evaluate tunnel widening and tunnel position [39]. Stress radiographs can augment clinical examination in the assessment of concomitant ligamentous injury such as the posterolateral corner.
Once other factors contributing to the index ACL failure have been identified and addressed, the authors suggest the following possible clinical scenarios where addition of LET would be appropriate:
-
1.
Traumatic graft rupture in a young patient with previously well-functioning graft and well-positioned tunnels where the patient has a desire to return to multidirectional sports
-
2.
Clinical graft failure with non-modifiable risk factors including meniscal deficiency, unresponsive to appropriate rehabilitation program, generalized ligamentous laxity or high-grade pivot shift
-
3.
Graft failure with no clear cause for failure
-
4.
Residual ALRI with intact graft
Outcomes of LET in Revision Surgery
Initial studies examining LET procedures in isolation showed variable outcomes and failed to definitively demonstrate the efficacy of the procedure [40, 41]. With the renewed interest in the ALL and its modern use in combination with ACLR and revision ACLR, the outcomes have been more promising. Recent studies have demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes and decreased rates of failure with combined ACLR and LET compared to ACLR alone in both the primary and revision setting [42,43,44,45,46,47].
A study in 2006 evaluated revision ACLR with hamstring autograft combined with modified MacIntosh LET [43]. Thirty patients were evaluated at a mean 5 years post-operatively. A graft was considered to have failed when a revision was done or when the side-to-side difference on KT-1000 arthrometer testing was >5 mm and/or the pivot shift test grade was greater than a trace. At the time of final follow-up, one patient had undergone repeat revision for graft failure at 3 years post-operatively. Pivot shift was normal in 15 patients (50%), slightly positive in 11 patients (37%) and positive in 2 patients. Overall rate of failure was 10%. There were no degenerative changes noted on radiographs.
Similarly, a 2019 study examined the functional results of combined LET and ACLR in professional soccer players. In the retrospective review, 24 professional soccer players were analysed at a mean of 42 months post-operatively [42]. ACLR revision was performed with an autologous bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft or a hamstring graft. LET was performed using a MacIntosh procedure. At the time of final follow-up, AP laxity was significantly reduced (p < 0.0001). Twenty-two patients (92%) had a negative pivot shift, and two had a residual glide (8%). The mean subjective IKDC and Lysholm score improved from 69.5 ± 11.1 (range: 56–90) to 88.4 ± 8.9 (range: 62.1–100) and from 58.1 ± 11.7 (range: 33–72) to 97.4 ± 3.2 (range: 88–100), respectively, with significant improvement (p < 0.0001) over pre-operative values. There was a 92% return to sport at the same level. Failure rate was reported as 8% [42].
A 2012 study directly compared revision ACL alone to revision ACL with the addition of LET [47]. The retrospective multicentre study included patients operated on from 1994 to 2003 at ten different centres with a minimum of 2 years follow-up. There were 163 patients included in the study. An associated LET was performed in 84 patients (51%). Type of LET performed and specific indications for the procedure were not disclosed by the authors. Failure was defined as grade 2 or 3 pivot shift or KT-1000 test showing a difference of greater than 5 mm. Failure rate was 15% in the revision ACLR group and 7% in the revision ACLR with LET group. At final follow-up, 63% of patients in the revision ACLR alone group had a negative pivot shift compared to 80% in the revision ACLR with LET (p = 0.03). There was, however, no statistical difference between groups with respect to IKDC scores.
A 2018 study investigated radiographic changes in patients who underwent ACLR with semitendinosus autograft combined with LET. Patients were evaluated at a mean of 10 years follow-up. There was a 7.6% failure rate based on side-to-side KT-1000 evaluation, >2 or higher pivot shift or patient-reported instability. Severe degenerative changes were seen in 25% of patients. The only risk factor that correlated with degenerative changes was previous meniscectomy [48].
The French Society of Arthroscopy investigated the rate of complications associated with combined primary ACLR and LET [46]. Thirteen surgical centres prospectively studied 392 cases of ACLR with LET with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Multiple techniques for LET were used including both single continuous grafts and separate grafts for each procedure. Outcome measures included range of motion, time to return to normal gait, Lachman testing, adverse events and re-tear. Two patients (0.5%) required manipulation under anaesthesia for flexion deficit, and four patients (1%) underwent arthroscopic lysis of adhesions for extension deficit. At the time of arthroscopy, this was found to be related to cyclops lesion and not the LET. During the first year, there was 1.7% rate of revision surgery specific to LET (three tibial screw and three femoral screw removal). Overall re-tear rate was 2.8% at 2 years follow-up. This study indicates the low morbidity associated with the lateral extra-articular procedures and highlights the increased post-operative stability and reduced failure rate.
Senior Author’s Preferred Surgical Technique
The modified Lemaire technique is used by the senior author (AG) [30]. The leg is positioned in 80 degrees of flexion. A 6 cm longitudinal skin incision is made just posterior to the lateral epicondyle, stopping 2 cm from Gerdy’s tubercle (Fig. 15.4a). The subcutaneous tissue is dissected down to the iliotibial band (Fig. 15.4b). A 1-cm-wide by 8-cm-long strip of the posterior half of the ITB is harvested, leaving intact the distal attachment at Gerdy’s tubercle as well as the Kaplan fibre complex (Fig. 15.4c). The free end of the tendon is whipstitched with a number 1 Vicryl suture (Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ). The fibular collateral ligament (FCL) is located and dissected. A Kelly is passed beneath the FCL (Fig. 15.4d). The graft is tunnelled deep to the fibular collateral ligament (FCL) (Fig. 15.4e). The graft is then attached to the femur just proximal to the metaphyseal flare of the lateral femoral condyle, proximal and posterior to the FCL femoral attachment and just anterior to the insertion of the distal Kaplan fibres of the ITB. Care must be taken during dissection at this point to avoid compromise of the ACL femoral fixation which is in the vicinity of this area. Fixation of the tenodesis is performed with a staple (Fig. 15.4f), with the graft tensioned to no more than 20 N with the knee held at 60° of flexion and neutral rotation of the tibia. The graft is then sutured back onto itself over the staple using the remainder of the whipstitched number 1 Vicryl suture [30]. The ITB is tacked closed with number 1 Vicryl suture (Fig. 15.4g). There is no change in the post-operative rehabilitation protocol with the addition of the LET. Generally, LET is completed at the end of the case (i.e. after ACL reconstruction is completed).
Conclusion
Though ACLR has generally favourable outcomes, there remains a subset of patients who go on to clinical graft failure or re-rupture. Multiple factors can lead to ACLR failure. ALRI or excessive residual laxity can contribute to ACLR failure. Modern LET procedures add minimal morbidity and have been shown to be effective in addressing ALRI in revision ACLR and decreasing graft failure rates.
References
Tashman S, Collon D, Anderson K, Kolowich P, Anderst W. Abnormal rotational knee motion during running after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(4):975–83.
Ristanis S, Stergio N, Patras K. Excessive tibial rotation during high demand activities is not restored by anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2005;21.1323–9.
Wright RW, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Dunn WR, Haas AK, Allen CR, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(10):1979–86.
Mohtadi NG, Chan DS, Dainty KN, Whelan DB. Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(9):CD005960.
Batty L, Lording T. Clinical results of lateral extra-articular tenodesis. Tech Orthop. 2018;33(4):232–8.
Ahn JH, Patel NA, Lin CC, Lee TQ. The anterolateral ligament of the knee joint: a review of the anatomy, biomechanics, and anterolateral ligament surgery. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2019;31(1):12.
Roessler PP, Schüttler KF, Heyse TJ, Wirtz DC, Efe T. The anterolateral ligament (ALL) and its role in rotational extra-articular stability of the knee joint: a review of anatomy and surgical concepts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(3):305–13.
Engebretsen L, Lew WD, Lewis JL and Hunter RE. The effect of an iliotibial tenodesis on intraarticular graft forces and knee joint motion. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(2):169–76.
Getgood A, Brown C, Lording T, Amis A, Claes S, Geeslin A, et al. The anterolateral complex of the knee: results from the International ALC Consensus Group Meeting. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(1):166–76.
Getgood AMJ, Bryant DM, Litchfield R, Heard M, McCormack RG, Rezansoff A, et al. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis reduces failure of hamstring tendon autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 2-year outcomes from the STABILITY study randomized clinical trial. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(2):285–97.
Sonnery-Cottet B, Saithna A, Cavalier M, Kajetanek C, Temponi EF, Daggett M, et al. Anterolateral ligament reconstruction is associated with significantly reduced ACL graft rupture rates at a minimum follow-up of 2 years: a prospective comparative study of 502 patients from the SANTI study group. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(7):1547–57.
Segond P. Recherches cliniques et experimentales sur les epanchements sanguins du genou par entorse. Prog Med. 1879;7:297–341.
Roessler P, Schuttler K, Stein T, Gravius S, Heyse T, Prescher A. Anatomic dissection of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) in paired fresh-frozen cadaveric knee joints. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(2):249–55.
Daggett M, Ockuly AC, Cullen M, Busch K, Lutz C, Imbert P, et al. Femoral origin of the anterolateral ligament: an anatomic analysis. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(5):835–41.
Runer A, Birkmaier S, Pamminger M, Reider S, Herbst E, Künzel KH, et al. The anterolateral ligament of the knee: a dissection study. Knee. 2016;23(1):8–12.
Stijak L, Bumbaširević M, Radonjić V, Kadija M, Puškaš L, Milovanović D, et al. Anatomic description of the anterolateral ligament of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(7):2083–8.
Helito CP, do Amaral C, Nakamichi YD, Gobbi RG, Bonadio MB, Natalino RJ, et al. Why do authors differ with regard to the femoral and meniscal anatomic parameters of the knee anterolateral ligament?: Dissection by layers and a description of its superficial and deep layers. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(12):2325967116675604.
Iseki T, Rothrauff B, Kihara S, Novaretti J, Shea K, Tuan R, et al. Paediatric knee anterolateral capsule does not contain a distinct ligament: analysis of histology, immunohistochemistry and gene expression. J ISAKOS. 2020;0:1–6.
Helito CP, Demange MK, Bonadio MB, Tírico LE, Gobbi RG, Pécora JR, et al. Anatomy and histology of the knee anterolateral ligament. Orthop J Sports Med. 2013;1(7):2325967113513546.
Vincent JP, Magnussen RA, Gezmez F, Uguen A, Jacobi M, Weppe F, et al. The anterolateral ligament of the human knee: an anatomic and histologic study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(1):147–52.
Caterine S, Litchfield R, Johnson M, Chronik B, Getgood A. A cadaveric study of the anterolateral ligament: re-introducing the lateral capsular ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(11):3186–95.
Spencer L, Burkhart TA, Tran MN, Rezansoff AJ, Deo S, Caterine S, et al. Biomechanical analysis of simulated clinical testing and reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(9):2189–97.
Nitri M, Rasmussen MT, Williams BT, Moulton SG, Cruz RS, Dornan GJ, et al. An in vitro robotic assessment of the anterolateral ligament, part 2: anterolateral ligament reconstruction combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(3):593–601.
Rasmussen MT, Nitri M, Williams BT, Moulton SG, Cruz RS, Dornan GJ, et al. An in vitro robotic assessment of the anterolateral ligament, part 1: secondary role of the anterolateral ligament in the setting of an anterior cruciate ligament injury. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(3):585–92.
Huser LE, Noyes FR, Jurgensmeier D, Levy MS. Anterolateral ligament and iliotibial band control of rotational stability in the anterior cruciate ligament-intact knee: defined by tibiofemoral compartment translations and rotations. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(3):595–604.
Thein R, Boorman-Padgett J, Stone K, Wickiewicz TL, Imhauser CW, Pearle AD. Biomechanical assessment of the anterolateral ligament of the knee: a secondary restraint in simulated tests of the pivot shift and of anterior stability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(11):937–43.
Inderhaug E, Stephen J, Williams A, Amis A. Anterolateral tenodesis or anterolateral ligament complex reconstruction: effect of flexion angle at graft fixation when combined with ACL reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45:3089–97.
Neri T, Dabirrahmani D, Beach A, Putnis S, Oshima T, Cadman J, et al. A biomechanical comparison of the main anterolateral procedures used in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8:2.
Lemaire M. Chronic knee instability. Technics and results of ligament plasty in sports injuries. J Chir (Paris). 1975;110(4):281–94.
Jesani S, Getgood A. Modified Lemaire lateral extra-articular tenodesis augmentation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2019;9(4).
Christel P, Djian P. Anterio-lateral extra-articular tenodesis of the knee using a short strip of fascia lata. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2002;88(5):508–13.
Ellison AE. Distal iliotibial-band transfer for anterolateral rotatory instability of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(3):330–7.
Arnold JA, Coker TP, Heaton LM, Park JP, Harris WD. Natural history of anterior cruciate tears. Am J Sports Med. 1979;7(6):305–13.
Bertoia JT, Urovitz EP, Richards RR, Gross AE. Anterior cruciate reconstruction using the MacIntosh lateral-substitution over-the-top repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(8):1183–8.
Macintosh D. Lateral substitution reconstruction. In proceedings of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association. J Bone Joint Surg. 1976;58.
Larson RL. Physical examination in the diagnosis of rotatory instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;172:38–44.
Hughes JD, Rauer T, Gibbs CM, Musahl V. Diagnosis and treatment of rotatory knee instability. J Exp Orthop. 2019;6(1):48.
Giffin JR, Vogrin TM, Zantop T, Woo SL, Harner CD. Effects of increasing tibial slope on the biomechanics of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(2):376–82.
de Beus A, Koch JE, Hirschmann A, Hirschmann MT. How to evaluate bone tunnel widening after ACL reconstruction – a critical review. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2017;7(2):230–9.
Neyret P, Palomo JR, Donell ST, Dejour H. Extra-articular tenodesis for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in amateur skiers. Br J Sports Med. 1994;28(1):31–4.
Ireland J, Trickey EL. Macintosh tenodesis for anterolateral instability of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980;62(3):340–5.
Alessio-Mazzola M, Formica M, Russo A, Sanguineti F, Capello AG, Lovisolo S, et al. Outcome after combined lateral extra-articular tenodesis and anterior cruciate ligament revision in professional soccer players. J Knee Surg. 2019;32(9):906–10.
Ferretti A, Conteduca F, Monaco E, De Carli A, D’Arrigo C. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons and lateral extra-articular reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(11):2373–9.
Grassi A, Zicaro JP, Costa-Paz M, Samuelsson K, Wilson A, Zaffagnini S, et al. Good mid-term outcomes and low rates of residual rotatory laxity, complications and failures after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL) and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(2):418–31.
Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Giordano G, Iacono F, Preti M. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction associated with extraarticular tenodesis: a prospective clinical and radiographic evaluation with 10- to 13- year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(4):707–14.
Panisset JC, Pailhé R, Schlatterer B, Sigwalt L, Sonnery-Cottet B, Lutz C, et al. Short-term complications in intra- and extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Comparison with the literature on isolated intra-articular reconstruction. A multicenter study by the French Arthroscopy Society. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(8S):S231–S6.
Trojani C, Beaufils P, Burdin G, Bussière C, Chassaing V, Djian P, et al. Revision ACL reconstruction: influence of a lateral tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(8):1565–70.
Redler A, Iorio R, Monaco E, Puglia F, Wolf MR, Mazza D, et al. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings and extra-articular tenodesis: a mid- to long-term clinical and radiological study. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(12):3204–13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Arakgi, M.E., Batty, L.M., Getgood, A.M.J. (2022). Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. In: Alaia, M.J., Jones, K.J. (eds) Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96996-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96996-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-96995-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-96996-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)