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.