Adding a Lateral Extra‐articular Tenodesis to Quadriceps Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Reduces Risk of Graft Failure
Sean P. Renfree, Joseph C. Brinkman, Sailesh V. Tummala, Alexander J. Hoffer, Kostas J. EconomopoulosPurpose
The purpose of this study was to compare graft failure and clinical outcomes following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using quadriceps tendon autograft (QA), with or without a modified Lemaire lateral extra‐articular tenodesis (LET).
Methods
Patients with ACL deficiency who underwent primary QA ACLR with or without LET and completed at least 2‐year follow‐up were included. Patients with a Beighton score ≥4, a preoperative pivot shift grade ≥2, or an intention to return to cutting and pivoting sports were offered LET. The primary outcome variable assessed was graft failure as defined by graft rupture or grade ≥2 pivot shift at any point postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included return to sport clearance rates, the International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores and postoperative complications.
Results
There were 122 undergoing QA ACLR with LET (QA + LET group) and 152 undergoing isolated QA ACLR (QA group). The QA + LET group had a significantly lower failure rate of 14.8% versus 29.6% in the QA group ( P = .02). In addition, the QA + LET group had a lower residual pivot shift rate compared with the QA group (11.3% vs. 26.3% respectively; P = .01). There was no difference in graft retear rates between the 2 groups ( P = .37). The QA + LET returned to sport significantly faster at 8.8 months compared with 9.7 months in the QA group ( P = .038).
Conclusions
The addition of LET to QA ACLR was associated with a significantly lower overall graft failure rate and lower percentage of patients with residual pivot shifts after ACLR compared with QA alone at 2‐year follow up. However, there was no difference between the 2 groups with regard to graft retear rates. The addition of an LET to QA ACLR also allowed athletes to return to sports faster compared with QA alone.
Level of Evidence
Level III, retrospective comparative study.