Clinical Outcomes of Isolated Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction or in Combination With Anatomic Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction

Abstract

Background: Although the cause of rotational instability after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is multifactorial, the rationale of adding an extra-articular procedure is based on its ability to restrict rotational instability. Purpose: To assess the effect of anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction on revision ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 87 patients who underwent revision ACLR between March 2011 and July 2014 with a follow-up of more than 3 years were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into the isolated revision ACLR group (group I, n = 45, from March 2011 to January 2013) or the revision ACLR in combination with ALL reconstruction group (group C, n = 42, from February 2013 to July 2014). Subjective knee assessments including the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale were used. Clinical and functional tests were performed before surgery and at ≥6 months after surgery. All tests were usually completed at 36 months of follow-up. Results: The mean follow-up duration for groups I and C were 41.5 ± 8.2 and 38.2 ± 6.9 months, respectively ( P = .451). The subjective IKDC score, Tegner score, and ACL-RSI score were significantly better in group C compared with those in group I at the last follow-up (84.3 ± 18.5 vs 75.9 ± 19.2, 7.0 ± 0.8 vs 6.3 ± 0.7, and 69.5 ± 25.4 vs 51.9 ± 23.1, respectively), although they were not significantly different between the 2 groups at 12 months after surgery (79.2 ± 18.8 vs 76.7 ± 17.2, 6.7 ± 0.7 vs 6.5 ± 0.9, and 50.2 ± 24.6 vs 49.9 ± 25.1, respectively). There were no significant differences in KT-2000 arthrometer, isokinetic extensor strength, single-legged hop for distance, co-contraction test, or carioca test results between the 2 groups at the last follow-up ( P = .304, .068, .125, .056, and .066, respectively). Preoperatively, 43 (95.6%) patients in group I and 40 (95.2%) patients in group C had a grade 2 or 3 pivot shift ( P = .387). Postoperatively, 23 (53.5%) patients in group I and 38 (90.5%) patients in group C had a negative pivot shift ( P < .001). Group C showed a higher rate of return to the same level of sports activity than group I (57.1% vs 25.6%, respectively; P = .008), although there was no significant difference in the rate of return to any sports activity at the last follow-up (88.4% in group I vs 88.1% in group C; P = .713). Conclusion: Revision ACLR in combination with ALL reconstruction significantly reduced rotational laxity and showed a higher rate of return to the same level of sports activity than revision ACLR alone, although there were no significant differences in anterior laxity or functional test results between the 2 groups.