This study aimed to investigate the effect of anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with high-grade pivot shift. The hypothesis was that revision ACLR combined with ALLR (RACLR with ALLR group) would show superior clinical outcomes to those of isolated revision ACLR. We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent revision ACLR (RACLR) combined with ALLR between October 2015 and January 2017. The indication for combination of ALLR with revision ACLR was failed ACLR with ≥G2 pivot-shift instability. The control group included patients who underwent isolated revision ACLR (isolated RACLR group) for the same indication between July 2013 and September 2015. Exclusion criteria were ≤G1 pivot-shift instability, multiple ligament reconstruction, bilateral ligament injury, double-bundle reconstruction, insufficient medical records, postoperative infection, and follow-up loss at postoperative 2 years. Clinical scores, stability tests, and failure rates were compared between groups at the 2-year follow-up. The RACLR with ALLR group had 18 patients (mean age, 32.9 ± 10.8 years) and the RACLR group had 21 patients (mean age, 29.6 ± 10.2 years). Clinical scores at the 2-year follow-up showed no significant differences between groups. However, the RACLR with ALLR group showed better stability in the Lachman test (p = 0.005), pivot-shift test (p = 0.030), and side-to-side difference in stress radiographs (3.9 ± 3.0 mm vs. 5.9 ± 2.8 mm, p = 0.018) than the isolated RACLR group. The RACLR with ALLR group had two failures (11.1%), and the RACLR group had three failures (14.3%). In conclusion, ALLR in revision ACLR with high-grade pivot shift improves anteroposterior stability as well as rotational stability at 2-year follow-up. Therefore, ALLR is recommended with revision ACLR, especially in patients with high-grade pivot shift. This is a Level III, retrospective cohort review.
Background: Several surgical methods have been developed for medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR). However, the question of which patellar fixation method, suture anchor (SA) or transosseous tunnel (TO) fixation, achieves better overall outcomes remains to be answered. Hypothesis: SA patellar fixation will present comparable clinical outcomes and a lower complication rate compared with TO patellar fixation for MPFLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 46 patients who underwent MPFLR with either TO fixation (n = 21; mean age, 24.4 ± 6.1 years) or SA fixation (n = 25; mean age, 24.1 ± 12.1 years) for the treatment of recurrent patellar dislocation. Clinical findings (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity score), radiological findings (congruence angle and patellar tilt angle), and complications (redislocation, patellar fracture, patellofemoral osteoarthritis progression, infection, and stiffness) were compared between the TO and SA groups at the 2-year follow-up visit. Results: The mean postoperative IKDC subjective and Lysholm scores did not differ significantly between groups. However, postoperative Tegner activity scores were significantly higher in the TO group than in the SA group (TO, 5.8 ± 1.4; SA, 4.9 ± 1.2; P = .012). Congruence angle did not differ significantly between the groups (TO, −3.2 ± 22.8; SA, −7.6 ± 17.8; P = .464). Patellar tilt angle was lower in the TO group than in the SA group (TO, 10.5 ± 5.4; SA, 13.7 ± 2.8; P = .015). During the follow-up period, the TO group had 1 redislocation and 2 patellar fractures, whereas the SA group had no redislocations or fractures. Patellofemoral osteoarthritis progression was significantly higher in the TO group than in the SA group at the 2-year follow-up visit (TO, 9/21; SA, 2/25; P = .006). Conclusion: Both TO and SA patellar fixation methods for MPFLR showed improved clinical outcomes. When compared with TO fixation, SA fixation presented comparable clinical outcomes and a lower complication rate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.