Search Filters

  • Presentation Format
  • Media Type
  • Diagnosis / Condition
  • Diagnosis Method
  • Patient Populations
  • Treatment / Technique

Lower failure rates after adding a lateral extra-articular augmentation to revision ACL reconstruction: a comparative series

2021 Congress Paper Abstracts

Lower failure rates after adding a lateral extra-articular augmentation to revision ACL reconstruction: a comparative series

Juan Pablo Zicaro, MD, ARGENTINA Ignacio Garcia-Mansilla, MD, ARGENTINA Carlos H. Yacuzzi, MD, ARGENTINA Matias Costa-Paz, MD, PhD., ARGENTINA

Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, CABA, Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA


2021 Congress   ePoster Presentation     Not yet rated

 

Anatomic Location

Anatomic Structure

Diagnosis / Condition

Patient Populations

This media is available to ISAKOS 2021: Global Registrants and On Demand purchases only.
Please log in or purchase to access.


Summary: Failure rate was 3 times lower for patients treated with a lateral augmentation alongside with the revision ACLR in comparison to isolated revision ACLR. Even though this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.6), we believe the results are clinically relevant. Clinical outcomes and return to sports were similar for both groups.


Introduction

Despite many authors agree that revision ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) is the main indication of a lateral extra articular augmentation, only few comparative studies have been reported. Besides providing a more stable knee, the main goal of a lateral augmentation is to reduce the failure rate. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the failure rate, clinical outcomes and return to sports of a consecutive series of patients treated for revision ACL with and without a lateral augmentation.

Materials And Methods

A total of 36 consecutive patients prospectively enrolled in our revision ACL reconstruction patient registry were identified for study purposes. Patients treated with isolated revision ACLR between 2014 and 2015 (group 1) were compared to those treated with revision ACLR associated with a LEAP between 2015 and 2016 (group 2).
Surgical technique and graft used in primary ACLR, revision ACLR and lateral augmentation (lateral tenodesis or anatomical anterolateral ligament reconstruction) were analyzed. Failure rate, determined as recurrent instability that required re-revision surgery was recorded. Subjective scores were calculated for Lysholm, Tegner, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) forms. KT-1000 measurements were performed as well as clinical examination. Postoperative magnetic resonance images (MRI) were obtained at one-year follow-up to assess graft incorporation.

Results

Eighteen patients were evaluated in each group with a mean follow-up of 53 months (range 37-73 months). Lateral augmentation was performed with an ilio-tibial band tenodesis in 13 cases and in 5 cases with an allograft reconstruction. Median age was 30.5 years (IQR 27-36 years) for Group 1 and 26.5 years (IQR 24-33 years) for Group 2. Failure rate was 17% (n=3) for Group 1 and 5.5% (n=1) for Group 2 (p 0.6) at a mean of 24 months. Median pre and postoperative Lysholm score was 65 (IQR 61-72) and 91 (IQR 87-98) in Group 1 and 72 (IQR 53-75) and 90 (IQR 79-95) in Group 2 (p 0.1). Median pre and postoperative IKDC score was 55 (IQR 45-65) and 80 (IQR 74-94) in Group 1 and 56 (IQR 48-67) and 76 (IQR 68-84) in Group 2 (p 0.11). Sixteen (89%) patients return to sports in each group. The MRI shown and homogeneous neoligament in 66% (n=12) of patients in group 1 and 61% (n=11) in group 2 (p 0.8).

Conclusion

Failure rate was 3 times lower in patients treated with a lateral augmentation alongside with the revision ACLR in comparison to isolated revision ACLR. Even though this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.6), we believe the results are clinically relevant. Clinical outcomes and return to sports were similar for both groups.


More ISAKOS 2021: Global Content