Download PDF
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2712-4279
Original Article

Short-term Outcomes and Rehabilitation Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with and without Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis in Younger Patients: A Prospective Comparison

Authors

  • Jelle P. van der List 

    1   Centre for Orthopaedic Research Alkmaar (CORAL), Alkmaar, The Netherlands
    2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
    3   Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States

  • Ingmar F. Blom

    1   Centre for Orthopaedic Research Alkmaar (CORAL), Alkmaar, The Netherlands
    4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands

  • Dirk Jan Hofstee

    4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands

  • Freerk J. Jonkers

    4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands

  • Joyce L. Benner

    1   Centre for Orthopaedic Research Alkmaar (CORAL), Alkmaar, The Netherlands
    4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
    5   Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Funding Information This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is commonly performed in the younger or active population, but failure rates have been disappointing in high-risk patients. Recently, lateral extra-articular procedures such as the modified Lemaire extra-articular tenodesis (LET) have been proposed to decrease failure rates, but knowledge on short-term rehabilitation, stiffness, and isokinetic strength is limited. This study aimed to assess the short-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and physical performance outcomes following ACLR with and without LET. A prospective study was performed among 152 patients aged ≤25 years undergoing hamstring autograft ACLR with or without modified Lemaire LET between 2019 and 2022 with minimum 1-year follow-up. PROMs (Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, NRS for pain, and EQ-5D) were compared between groups preoperatively and at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months, while physical performance (range of motion [ROM], and limb symmetry indices [LSI] of isokinetic testing, single-leg and timed-6m hop) was compared up to 9 months postoperatively. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were similar, except thicker grafts in the LET group (8.9 vs. 8.7 mm, p = 0.047). At 3 months, Lemaire patients reported less pain (NRS pain 17.1 vs. 35.6, p < .001), but at 6 months, Lemaire patients had inferior LSI for timed-6m hop (87% vs. 96%, p = 0.003). At 9 months, Lemaire patients had similar return to sports, PROMs, and ROM, but had lower LSI for flexion endurance strength (88% vs. 97%, p = 0.041). At 12 months, no differences were seen in PROMs. In conclusion, Patients undergoing ACLR with LET had less pain at 3 months, but worse LSI for timed-6m hop at 6 months and worse LSI for flexion endurance strength at 9 months. Both groups showed similar performance on all other outcomes, indicating that ACLR with LET is not associated with increased stiffness, complications, or significant strength deficits.

Level of evidence: Level II prospective study.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament - reconstruction - lateral extra-articular procedure - anterolateral ligament - modified Lemaire tenodesis

Note

This study was performed at: Centre for Orthopaedic Research Alkmaar (CORAL) and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.




Publication History

Received: 18 March 2025

Accepted: 26 September 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
29 September 2025

Article published online:
14 October 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Sanders TL, Maradit Kremers H, Bryan AJ. et al. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction: a 21-year population-based study. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (06) 1502-1507
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M. et al. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (10) 2363-2370
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Prodromos CC, Han Y, Rogowski J, Joyce B, Shi K. A meta-analysis of the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears as a function of gender, sport, and a knee injury-reduction regimen. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (12) 1320-1325.e6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Eriksson K, von Essen C, Jönhagen S, Barenius B. No risk of arthrofibrosis after acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (10) 2875-2882
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sommerfeldt M, Goodine T, Raheem A, Whittaker J, Otto D. Relationship between time to ACL reconstruction and presence of adverse changes in the knee at the time of reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6 (12) 2325967118813917
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Karikis I, Åhlén M, Sernert N, Ejerhed L, Rostgård-Christensen L, Kartus J. The long-term outcome after early and late anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2018; 34 (06) 1907-1917
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Fithian DC, Paxton EW, Stone ML. et al. Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (03) 335-346
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 van der List JP, Hagemans FJA, Hofstee DJ, Jonkers FJ. The role of patient characteristics in the success of nonoperative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (07) 1657-1664
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 von Essen C, Eriksson K, Barenius B. Acute ACL reconstruction shows superior clinical results and can be performed safely without an increased risk of developing arthrofibrosis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (07) 2036-2043
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 van der List JP, Hagemans FJA, Zuiderbaan HA. et al. Age, activity level and meniscus injury, but not tear location, tibial slope or anterolateral ligament injury predict coping with anterior cruciate ligament injury. Knee 2021; 29: 222-232
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Anderson AB, Dekker TJ, Pav V. et al. Survival of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions in active-duty military populations. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (08) 3196-3203
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Webster KE, Feller JA. Exploring the high reinjury rate in younger patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (11) 2827-2832
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Ristanis S, Stergiou N, Patras K, Vasiliadis HS, Giakas G, Georgoulis AD. Excessive tibial rotation during high-demand activities is not restored by anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (11) 1323-1329
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 van Eck CF, Schkrohowsky JG, Working ZM, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH. Prospective analysis of failure rate and predictors of failure after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (04) 800-807
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Claes S, Luyckx T, Vereecke E, Bellemans J. The Segond fracture: a bony injury of the anterolateral ligament of the knee. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (11) 1475-1482
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 van der List JP. Editorial commentary: anterolateral reconstruction versus lateral extra-articular tenodesis—six of one and half a dozen of the other?. Arthroscopy 2020; 36 (07) 1951-1952
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Hewison CE, Tran MN, Kaniki N, Remtulla A, Bryant D, Getgood AM. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis reduces rotational laxity when combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of the literature. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (10) 2022-2034
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Getgood AMJ, Bryant DM, Litchfield R. et al; STABILITY Study Group. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis reduces failure of hamstring tendon autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 2-year outcomes from the STABILITY study randomized clinical trial. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (02) 285-297
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Inderhaug E, Stephen JM, Williams A, Amis AA. Biomechanical comparison of anterolateral procedures combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (02) 347-354
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Geeslin AG, Moatshe G, Chahla J. et al. Anterolateral knee extra-articular stabilizers: a robotic study comparing anterolateral ligament reconstruction and modified Lemaire lateral extra-articular tenodesis. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (03) 607-616
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 van der Wal WA, van der List JP. Editorial Commentary: The anterolateral ligament is only part of the puzzle of anterolateral corner injury in anterior cruciate ligament disruption and reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2025; S0 749-8063(25)00423-2
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Devitt BM, Bell SW, Ardern CL. et al. The role of lateral extra-articular tenodesis in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review with meta-analysis and best-evidence synthesis. Orthop J Sports Med 2017; 5 (10) 2325967117731767-2325967117731767
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Feng J, Cao Y, Tan L. et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with lateral extra-articular tenodesis reduces knee rotation laxity and graft failure rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2022; 30 (01) 10 225536221095969
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Getgood A, Hewison C, Bryant D. et al; Stability Study Group. No difference in functional outcomes when lateral extra-articular tenodesis is added to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young active patients: the stability study. Arthroscopy 2020; 36 (06) 1690-1701
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A. et al; RECORD Working Committee. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med 2015; 12 (10) e1001885
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Jesani S, Getgood A. Modified Lemaire lateral extra-articular tenodesis augmentation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. JBJS Essent Surg Tech 2019; 9 (04) e41.1-7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Lemaire M, Combelles F. [Plastic repair with fascia lata for old tears of the anterior cruciate ligament (author's transl)]. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 1980; 66 (08) 523-525
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Engelen-van Melick N, Hullegie W, Brooijmans F. et al. KNGF Evidence Statement; Revalidatie na voorste-kruisbandreconstructie. Published online 2014. Available at: https://www.rpajanssen.nl/images/user/files/es_revalidatie-na-voorste-kruisbandreconstructie.pdf
    PubMed
  • 29 van Melick N, van Cingel RE, Brooijmans F. et al. Evidence-based clinical practice update: practice guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation based on a systematic review and multidisciplinary consensus. Br J Sports Med 2016; 50 (24) 1506-1515
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Meuffels DE, Poldervaart MT, Diercks RL. et al. Guideline on anterior cruciate ligament injury. Acta Orthop 2012; 83 (04) 379-386
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 van Grinsven S, van Cingel REH, Holla CJM, van Loon CJM. Evidence-based rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (08) 1128-1144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Hamrin Senorski E, Samuelsson K, Thomeé C, Beischer S, Karlsson J, Thomeé R. Return to knee-strenuous sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a report from a rehabilitation outcome registry of patient characteristics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (05) 1364-1374
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Nawasreh Z, Logerstedt D, Cummer K, Axe M, Risberg MA, Snyder-Mackler L. Functional performance 6 months after ACL reconstruction can predict return to participation in the same preinjury activity level 12 and 24 months after surgery. Br J Sports Med 2018; 52 (06) 375-375
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Vadalà AP, Iorio R, De Carli A. et al. An extra-articular procedure improves the clinical outcome in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings in female athletes. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (02) 187-192
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Noyes FR, Barber SD. The effect of an extra-articular procedure on allograft reconstructions for chronic ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991; 73 (06) 882-892
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Dejour D, Vanconcelos W, Bonin N, Saggin PRF. Comparative study between mono-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone, double-bundle hamstring and mono-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone combined with a modified Lemaire extra-articular procedure in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (02) 193-199
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Rosenstiel N, Praz C, Ouanezar H. et al. Combined anterior cruciate and anterolateral ligament reconstruction in the professional athlete: clinical outcomes from the Scientific Anterior Cruciate Ligament Network International study group in a series of 70 patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Arthroscopy 2019; 35 (03) 885-892
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Sonnery-Cottet B, Saithna A, Cavalier M. et al. Anterolateral ligament reconstruction is associated with significantly reduced ACL graft rupture rates at a minimum follow-up of 2 years: a prospective comparative study of 502 patients from the SANTI study group. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (07) 1547-1557
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Yoon KH, Hwang IU, Kim EJ, Kwon YB, Kim SG. Anterolateral ligament reconstruction improves anteroposterior stability as well as rotational stability in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with high-grade pivot shift. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (12) 1310-1317
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Ventura A, Legnani C, Boisio F, Borgo E, Peretti GM. The association of extra-articular tenodesis restores rotational stability more effectively compared to contralateral hamstring tendon autografts ACL reconstruction alone in patients undergoing ACL revision surgery. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2021; 107 (02) 102739
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Palmieri-Smith RM, Lepley LK. Quadriceps strength asymmetry after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction alters knee joint biomechanics and functional performance at time of return to activity. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (07) 1662-1669
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Krackow KA, Brooks RL. Optimization of knee ligament position for lateral extraarticular reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1983; 11 (05) 293-302
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Chiba D, Gale T, Nishida K. et al. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis contributes little to change in vivo kinematics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2021; 49 (07) 1803-1812
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Webster KE, Feller JA, Lambros C. Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Phys Ther Sport 2008; 9 (01) 9-15
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Whitehead TS, Webster KE. Psychological responses matter in returning to preinjury level of sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (07) 1549-1558
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Vermeijden HD, Yang XA, van der List JP, DiFelice GS, Rademakers MV, Kerkhoffs GMMJ. Trauma and femoral tunnel position are the most common failure modes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (11) 3666-3675
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Brophy RH, Schmitz L, Wright RW. et al. Return to play and future ACL injury risk after ACL reconstruction in soccer athletes from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (11) 2517-2522
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Keizer MNJ, Brouwer RW, de Graaff F, Hoogeslag RAG. Higher return to pre-injury type of sports after revision anterior ligament reconstruction with lateral extra-articular tenodesis compared to without lateral extra-articular tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (05) 1699-1703
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Lee DW, Kim JG, Cho SI, Kim DH. Clinical outcomes of isolated revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction or in combination with anatomic anterolateral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (02) 324-333
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar