The Role of Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Clinical Studies

Background: After its success in restoring rotational stability and reducing failure rates in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) or anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) has been endorsed for use in revision ACLR surgery, where failure rates are historically higher. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether the addition of a LET or ALLR results in superior clinical outcomes and stability compared with isolated revision ACLR (iACLR). Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms: (“extra-articular” OR “tenodesis” OR “anterolateral ligament” OR “iliotibial”) AND (“anterior cruciate ligament”) AND (“revision” OR “re-operation”). Data pertaining to all patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), rotational stability, and postoperative complications were extracted from each study. Results: After abstract and full-text screening, 10 clinical comparative studies were included. There were 793 patients, of whom 390 had an iACLR while 403 had an ACLR augmented with a LET or an ALLR (augmented ACLR [aACLR]). The mean time for assessment of PROMs was 35 months. The aACLR group had superior International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.54; P = .04), rotational stability (odds ratio [OR], 2.77; 95% CI, 1.91 to 4.01; P < .00001), and lower side-to-side difference (OR, −0.53; 95% CI, −0.81 to −0.24; P = .0003) than those without the augmentation. Furthermore, they were less likely to fail (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.80; P = .007). Subgroup analysis in the higher-grade laxity cohort (grade ≥2) revealed an even greater IKDC score (SMD, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.86; P = .005) and an improved Lysholm score (SMD, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.67; P < .0001) in the aACLR group. Conclusion: Revision aACLR with a LET or an ALLR can improve subjective IKDC scores, restore rotational stability, and reduce failure rates compared with iACLR. Although controversy remains on the necessity of augmenting all revision ACLRs, the present meta-analysis advocates adding a lateral procedure, particularly in those with a higher-grade pivot shift.