Clinical outcomes of contemporary lateral augmentation techniques in primary ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to systematically review the contemporary literature to determine if a lateral augmentation (LA) added to an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) provides better clinical and patient reported outcomes compared to an isolated ACLR. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Two authors independently conducted an electronic search using MEDLINE® and Embase® on February 6 th , 2021 for level I‐III randomized controlled trials (RCT) and prospective cohort studies without randomization, published after 2012 and with a minimum of two year follow‐up. Publications were included when they reported on the objective knee stability examination, patient reported outcome scores, return to sports or graft rupture rate of any type of primary, isolated ACLR compared to ACLR combined with any type of LA. Results A total of 11 studies that reported on a combined total of 1892 unique patients were eligible for data extraction, including five RCTs and six prospective cohort studies. In 6 studies, an Anterolateral Ligament reconstruction (ALLR) was the LA of choice, while the 5 other publications used different types of Lateral Extra‐articular Tenodesis (LET). A significant reduction in graft ruptures was found in patients treated with ACLR + LA (3%) compared to isolated ACLR (12%). Rotational laxity was significantly higher in isolated ACLR (14%) compared to ACLR + LA (6%). Addition of a LA reduced anterior translation when assessed via instrumented laxity testing. No significant difference was found in the patient reported outcome scores (IKDC and Tegner) between both patient groups, except for the Lysholm Score which was significant in favour of the ACLR + LA group. Conclusion Combination of a primary ACLR with a LA can significantly reduce the risk of graft rupture and provide better rotatory stability, without jeopardizing patient reported outcomes. Level of evidence Level III, Systematic Review of Level I, II and III studies.