Graft Tensioning in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose Notchplasty is a complementary surgical procedure often performed during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with the aim to widen the intercondylar notch and to avoid graft impingement. The aim of this review was to analyze the current literature evidence concerning the effects of notchplasty on clinical outcome after primary ACLR. Methods Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and MEDLINE were used to search English language studies, from January 1990 to July 2015, concerning the effects of the notchplasty on ACLR, using the following keywords: “ACL” OR “anterior cruciate ligament” OR “ACL reconstruction” OR “anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction” AND “notch” OR “notchplasty” OR “intercondylar notch”. Randomized and nonrandomized trials, case series, technical notes, biomechanical studies and radiological study were included. Results At the final screening 16 studies were included. Despite widely used, the usefulness of notchplasty during ACLR remains unclear. Some concerns emerged regarding potential harmful effects of notchplasty, mostly related to the knee biomechanics and postoperative blood loss. Notchplasty can be useful in the treatment of arthrofibrosis and in presence of bony spurs of the notch both in primary and revision surgery. However, the level of evidence of available literature is poor and there is a strong need for randomized controlled trials investigating the role of notchplasty on ACLR. Conclusion We suggest being aware of potential complications following notchplasty during ACLR before deciding to perform notchplasty in primary ACLR, reserving it for the surgical management of arthrofibrosis, treatment of notch osteophytosis and revision ACLR. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of level II-IV studies.

Download Full-text

The Effect of Platelet Concentrates on Graft Maturation and Graft-Bone Interface Healing in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Human Patients: A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials

Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.arthro.2011.06.003 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 27 (11) ◽

pp. 1573-1583 ◽

Cited By ~ 73

Author(s):

Patrick Vavken ◽

Patrick Sadoghi ◽

Martha M. Murray

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Cruciate Ligament ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Platelet Concentrates ◽

Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Bone Interface ◽

Anterior Cruciate

Download Full-text

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Alone Versus With Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/03635465211004946 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 036354652110049

Author(s):

James Randolph Onggo ◽

Hari Krishnan Rasaratnam ◽

Mithun Nambiar ◽

Jason Derry Onggo ◽

Vishal Pai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽

Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Cruciate Ligament ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Anterior Cruciate

Background: Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LEAT) aims to improve anterolateral stability of the injured knee during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) surgery. Inconclusive evidence surrounding the efficacy and safety of LEAT has propelled clinical interest and ongoing discussions. Purpose: To establish level 1 evidence by assessing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with minimum 2-year follow-up that directly compared ACLR with LEAT (LEAT group) and ACLR alone (non-LEAT group) in terms of clinical outcomes and complications. Study Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Meta-analysis was performed with a multidatabase search (Cochrane, EMBASE, OVID Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science) according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines on September 9, 2020. Data from published RCTs meeting inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed with an inverse variance statistical model. Results: A total of 7 RCTs were included, consisting of 517 LEAT and 589 non-LEAT patients. Only autografts were used for ACLR and LEAT. A variety of LEAT techniques and autograft fixation methods were used. We found improved stability (residual positive pivot shift: risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.88; P = .01) and better clinical outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] score: mean difference [MD], 2.31; 95% CI, 0.54-4.09; P = .01; and Lysholm score: MD, 2.71; 95% CI, 0.68-4.75; P = .009) in the LEAT than non-LEAT group. Graft rerupture rate was 3 times less likely (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58; P < .001) in the LEAT group than the non-LEAT group. Conclusion: Good-quality evidence is available to support the efficacy of LEAT in improving anterolateral knee stability and reducing graft reruptures in primary ACLR. LEAT should be considered in patients with high risk factors. Although Lysholm and IKDC scores were statistically better in the LEAT group, these are unlikely to be clinically significant. Future studies should aim to identify patient populations that would best benefit from LEAT with ACLR.

Download Full-text