Lateral tenodesis procedures increase lateral compartment pressures more than anterolateral ligament reconstruction, when performed in combination with ACL reconstruction: a pilot biomechanical study

ObjectivesGiven the common occurrence of residual laxity and re-injury post anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), additional anterolateral procedures are increasingly used in combination with an ACLR. Despite the perception that there is a risk of over-constraining the lateral tibiofemoral (LTF) compartment, potentially leading to osteoarthritis, assessment on their effect on intra-articular compartment pressures is still lacking. Our objective was therefore, through a pilot biomechanical study, to compare LTF contact pressures after the most commonly used anterolateral procedures.MethodsA controlled laboratory pilot study was performed using 4 fresh-frozen cadaveric whole lower limbs. Through 0° to 90° of flexion, LTF contact pressures were measured with a Tekscan sensor, located under the lateral meniscus. Knee kinematics were obtained in 3 conditions of rotation (NR: neutral, ER: external and IR: internal rotation) to record the position of the knees for each loading condition. A Motion Analysis system with a coordinate system based on CT scans 3D bone modelling was used. After an ACLR, defined as the reference baseline, 5 anterolateral procedures were compared: anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR), modified Ellison, deep Lemaire, superficial Lemaire and modified MacIntosh procedures. The last 3 procedures were randomised. For each procedure, the graft was fixed in NR at 30° of flexion and with a tension of 20 N.ResultsCompared with isolated ACLR, addition of either ALLR or modified Ellison procedure did not increased the overall LTF contact pressure (all p>0.05) through the full range of flexion for the IR condition. Conversely, deep Lemaire, superficial Lemaire and modified MacIntosh procedure (all p<0.05) did increase the overall LTF contact pressure compared with ACLR in IR. No significant difference was observed in ER and NR conditions.ConclusionThis pilot study, comparing the main anterolateral procedures, revealed that addition of either ALLR or modified Ellison procedure did not change the overall contact pressure in the LTF compartment through 0° to 90° of knee flexion. In contrast, the deep and superficial Lemaire, and modified MacIntosh procedures significantly increased overall LTF contact pressures when the knee was internally rotated.

Download Full-text

Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Protects the Repaired Medial Meniscus: A Comparative Study of 383 Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions From the SANTI Study Group With a Minimum Follow-up of 2 Years

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546518767659 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 46 (8) ◽

pp. 1819-1826 ◽

Cited By ~ 34

Author(s):

Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet ◽

Adnan Saithna ◽

William G. Blakeney ◽

Herve Ouanezar ◽

Amrut Borade ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽

Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Cruciate Ligament ◽

Meniscal Repair ◽

Anterolateral Ligament ◽

Hamstring Tendons ◽

Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Anterior Cruciate

Background: The prevalence of osteoarthritis after successful meniscal repair is significantly less than that after failed meniscal repair. Purpose: To determine whether the addition of anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) confers a protective effect on medial meniscal repair performed at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed to include all patients who had undergone primary ACLR with concomitant posterior horn medial meniscal repair through a posteromedial portal between January 2013 and August 2015. ACLR autograft choice was bone–patellar tendon–bone, hamstring tendons (or quadrupled hamstring tendons), or quadrupled semitendinosus tendon graft with or without ALLR. At the end of the study period, all patients were contacted to determine if they had undergone reoperation. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was plotted, and a Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to perform multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 383 patients (mean ± SD age, 27.4 ± 9.2 years) were included with a mean follow-up of 37.4 months (range, 24-54.9 months): 194 patients underwent an isolated ACLR, and 189 underwent a combined ACLR + ALLR. At final follow-up, there was no significant difference between groups in postoperative side-to-side laxity (isolated ACLR group, 0.9 ± 0.9 mm [min to max, –1 to 3]; ACLR + ALLR group, 0.8 ± 1.0 mm [min to max, –2 to 3]; P = .2120) or Lysholm score (isolated ACLR group, 93.0 [95% CI, 91.3-94.7]; ACLR + ALLR group, 93.7 [95% CI, 92.3-95.1]; P = .556). Forty-three patients (11.2%) underwent reoperation for failure of the medial meniscal repair or a new tear. The survival rates of meniscal repair at 36 months were 91.2% (95% CI, 85.4%-94.8) in the ACLR + ALLR group and 83.8% (95% CI, 77.1%-88.7%; P = .033) in the ACLR group. The probability of failure of medial meniscal repair was >2 times lower in patients with ACLR + ALLR as compared with patients with isolated ACLR (hazard ratio, 0.443; 95% CI, 0.218-0.866). No other prognosticators of meniscal repair failure were identified. Conclusion: Combined ACLR and ALLR is associated with a significantly lower rate of failure of medial meniscal repairs when compared with those performed at the time of isolated ACLR.

Download Full-text