Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Decrease Graft Failure in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction When Combined With Quadriceps or Patellar Tendon Grafts
{"title":"Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Decrease Graft Failure in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction When Combined With Quadriceps or Patellar Tendon Grafts","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div><span>To compare return-to-sport (RTS) rates, graft failure<span> rates, and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) with additional lateral extra-articular </span></span>tenodesis (LET) versus isolated R-ACLR.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div><span><span>A retrospective review of the medical records of patients who underwent R-ACLR with or without a modified Lemaire LET procedure was performed. Seventy-four patients with at least 2 years of follow-up who had high-grade positive pivot-shift test findings were included. Concomitant procedures such as </span>meniscectomy and </span>meniscal repair<span> were collected, along with any complications and/or graft failure. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form score were collected. The ability to RTS was defined as fully, partially, or not returned.</span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the patients, 39 underwent isolated R-ACLR (mean age ± standard deviation, 29.2 ± 12.2 years) whereas 35 underwent an additional LET procedure (mean age, 24.6 ± 7.4 years). The mean length of follow-up in the R-ACLR group was 56.6 ± 26.5 months compared with 44.3 ± 17.6 months in the R-ACLR–LET group (<em>P</em><span> = .02) (range, 24-120 months). Patient-reported outcome measures were higher in the R-ACLR–LET group, with the KOOS Activities of Daily Living (93.5 ± 2.0 vs 97.2 ± 1.6, </span><em>P</em> = .03) and KOOS Sport (63.0 ± 3.6 vs 74.3 ± 3.8, <em>P</em> = .05) subdomain scores reaching the level of statistical significance. No differences were found in the other KOOS subdomain scores or the International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Failure rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.8% for R-ACLR vs 11.4% for R-ACLR–LET, <em>P</em> = .99). There were 13 patients (72.2%) in the R-ACLR group and 14 patients (60.8%) in the R-ACLR–LET group who did not RTS.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>R-ACLR with additional LET showed similar failure and RTS rates to isolated R-ACLR after failed ACLR. The R-ACLR–LET group showed better functional results with significantly higher KOOS subdomain scores for activities of daily living, as well as sports and recreation. However, this study was unable to recommend the modified Lemaire LET procedure to be routinely used in R-ACLR patients.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":"40 10","pages":"Pages 2601-2609"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806324000902","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
To compare return-to-sport (RTS) rates, graft failure rates, and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) with additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) versus isolated R-ACLR.
Methods
A retrospective review of the medical records of patients who underwent R-ACLR with or without a modified Lemaire LET procedure was performed. Seventy-four patients with at least 2 years of follow-up who had high-grade positive pivot-shift test findings were included. Concomitant procedures such as meniscectomy and meniscal repair were collected, along with any complications and/or graft failure. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form score were collected. The ability to RTS was defined as fully, partially, or not returned.
Results
Of the patients, 39 underwent isolated R-ACLR (mean age ± standard deviation, 29.2 ± 12.2 years) whereas 35 underwent an additional LET procedure (mean age, 24.6 ± 7.4 years). The mean length of follow-up in the R-ACLR group was 56.6 ± 26.5 months compared with 44.3 ± 17.6 months in the R-ACLR–LET group (P = .02) (range, 24-120 months). Patient-reported outcome measures were higher in the R-ACLR–LET group, with the KOOS Activities of Daily Living (93.5 ± 2.0 vs 97.2 ± 1.6, P = .03) and KOOS Sport (63.0 ± 3.6 vs 74.3 ± 3.8, P = .05) subdomain scores reaching the level of statistical significance. No differences were found in the other KOOS subdomain scores or the International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Failure rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.8% for R-ACLR vs 11.4% for R-ACLR–LET, P = .99). There were 13 patients (72.2%) in the R-ACLR group and 14 patients (60.8%) in the R-ACLR–LET group who did not RTS.
Conclusions
R-ACLR with additional LET showed similar failure and RTS rates to isolated R-ACLR after failed ACLR. The R-ACLR–LET group showed better functional results with significantly higher KOOS subdomain scores for activities of daily living, as well as sports and recreation. However, this study was unable to recommend the modified Lemaire LET procedure to be routinely used in R-ACLR patients.
Level of Evidence
Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.
期刊介绍:
Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.