Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Shows Superior Graft Remodeling, Maturation, and Stability Compared With Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE: To compare graft remodeling, as measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and clinical outcomes between patients who underwent isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ACLR + ALLR). METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent primary ACLR with quadruple hamstring grafts between January 2019 and March 2022, with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Patients were categorized into 2 groups on the basis of the addition of ALLR with tibialis anterior allografts: an isolated ACLR group and an ACLR + ALLR group. Graft ligamentization was assessed using signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ) values obtained from postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans, with lower SNQ values indicating superior graft remodeling. Clinical outcomes were evaluated through knee stability tests (pivot-shift test, side-to-side laxity), functional outcomes, and graft retear rates. The minimal clinically important difference for the clinical scores was calculated using the distribution-based method of a half standard deviation of the delta (difference between postoperative and baseline values). Regression analyses identified potential predictive factors for inferior ACL graft remodeling. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients in the isolated ACLR group and 54 in the ACLR + ALLR group were evaluated. The mean follow-up periods were similar between the groups (34.1 ± 7.4 months vs 36.4 ± 9.0 months; P = .755). The mean SNQ values were significantly lower in the ACLR + ALLR group compared with the isolated ACLR group (2.8 ± 1.6 vs 4.7 ± 3.5 mm, respectively; P = .001). Inferior ACL graft maturity was associated with an increased posterior tibial slope (P = .016), narrow notch width (P =.018), and concomitant medial meniscal lesion (P = .017). At the final evaluation, the ACLR + ALLR group demonstrated better rotational stability as indicated by the residual pivot-shift test (P = .005). No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in side-to-side laxity, functional outcomes, or graft retear rates. There were no differences in the percentage of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference for the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score between the groups (P = .536). CONCLUSIONS: Combined ACLR and ALLR resulted in superior graft remodeling, demonstrated by a mean SNQ value that was 1.9 lower than in isolated ACLR, along with improved rotational stability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective, nonrandomized, comparative therapeutic study.