Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) and Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis through the Modified Lemaire Technique versus Isolated ACLR: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Abstract

Objective Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has been proposed to resolve rotatory instability following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of ACLR and ACLR with LET using the modified Lemaire technique.

Materials and Methods We performed a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) staement. The literature search was performed on the PubMed, EBSCOHost, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and WileyOnline databases. The data extracted from the studies included were the study characteristics, the failure rate (graft or clinical failure) as the primary outcome, and the functional score as the secondary outcome. Comparisons were made between the patients who underwent isolated ACLR (ACLR group) and those submitted to ACLR and LET through the modified Lemaire technique (ACLR + LET group).

Results A total of 5 studies including 797 patients were evaluated. The ACLR + LET group presented a lower risk of failure and lower rate of rerupture than the ACLR group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.26 to 0.75; I²= 9%; p = 0.003). The ACLR + LET group presented higher scores on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) regarding the following outcomes: pain, activities of daily living (ADL), sports, and quality of life (QOL), with mean differences of 0.20 (95%CI: 0.10 to 0.30; I²= 0%; p < 0.0001), -0.20 (95%CI: -0.26 to -0.13; I²= 0%; p < 0.00001), 0.20 (95%CI: 0.02 to 0.38; I²= 0%; p = 0.03), and 0.50 (95%CI: 0.29 to 0.71; I²= 0%; p < 0.00001) respectively when compared with the ACLR group.

Conclusion Adding LET through the modified Lemaire technique to ACLR may improve knee stability because of the lower rate of graft rerupture and the superiority in terms of clinical outcomes.

Level of Evidence I.

 

MissingLinkText

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - joint instability - knee joint - tenodesis - treatment outcome

Introduction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures are among the most commonly studied injuries in orthopedic research, and their incidence is estimated to range from 30 to 78 cases per 100 thousand people a year.[1] After ACL reconstruction (ACLR), 61% to 89% of athletes successfully return to sports, typically between 8 and 18 months after the reconstruction, depending on the level of play.[1] Under certain conditions, a rerupture can occur, which may be devastating. The reported rate of ACL rerupture ranges from 1% to 11%, and they may be caused by traumatic reinjuries, biological graft failure, or technical surgical errors.[1] [2]

The management of ACL injury in patients at a higher risk of rerupture remains controversial. It has been shown that the risk factors for graft rupture include younger patients (< 20 years of age), those with generalized hypermobility and physiologic knee hyperextension, and those returning to high-risk (pivoting) sports.[3] Further, Saita et al.[4] showed that knee hyperextension and a small lateral condyle are associated with greater anterolateral rotatory instability, which is difficult to manage in patients who continue to show a positive pivot shift after isolated ACLR. In the literature,[3] [5] [6] [7] the MacIntosh, Lemaire, and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction techniques have been shown to resolve anterolateral rotatory instability. Reconstruction of the ALL was found to reduce the graft failure rate in large series of patients at 2 years of follow-up.[8] The modified Lemaire technique has been shown to present a low complication rate and to cause a reduction in pivot-shift instability.[6]

One of the reasons to favor lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) rather than ALL reconstruction is because of the evidence indicating that ALL reconstruction could overconstrain the lateral joint while not being as mechanically advantageous in resisting rotation.[9] [10] The aim of LET is to decrease the rerupture rate by providing more stability to the knee joint. A cohort study by Cavaignac et al.[11] reported that ACLR with LET showed better graft maturity on magnetic resianace imaging (MRI) scans after one year of the procedures. Mayr et al.[12] focused on the modified Lemaire technique, which has recently been used to perform LET, and they showed that it may decrease the strain on the graft as well as residual rotational laxity, thus improving the clinical outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the impact of ACLR and LET through the modified Lemaire technique compared with ACLR on patients with ACL rupture in terms of the rerupture rate and clinical outcome. The objective of the present study was to determine the surgical outcome of ACLR with modified Lemaire LET for ACL rupture, which is be represented by the rerupture rate and clinical outcomes.

 

MissingLinkText

Materials and Methods

Search Strategy

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.[13] The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework. The literature search was conducted in June 2022 on several databases, including PubMed, EBSCOHost, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and WileyOnline, focusing on the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome (PICO) strategy. The population consisted of patients with ACL tears, the intervention was ACLR and LET through the modified Lemaire technique, and isolated ACLR was the comparator. The outcomes assessed were the rerupture rate as the primary outcome, and the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and functional scores as secondary outcomes.

 

MissingLinkText

Study Selection

The exclusion criteria were animal studies, revision cases of ACLR, concomitant posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) or meniscus reconstruction, underlying congenital condition or neoplasm, ACLR with ALL reconstruction, patients treated with pharmacologic treatment, nutrition treatment, physical therapy or isolated rehabilitation, and ACLR with LET not through the modified Lemaire technique. Only studies published in English within the last twenty years were included.

 

MissingLinkText

Quality Appraisal and Risk of Bias Assessment

Two authors (ED and LC) performed the identification and selectionof studies, as well as data extraction. The quality assessment was performed by two other authors (MS, IJA). Differences in opinion between the two reviewers were resolved by reassessment and discussion with another author (EK). The selected studies were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's tools for critical appraisal.[14]

 

MissingLinkText

Data Extraction and Analysis

The data extracted from the included studies were characteristics such as author and year of publication, location, design, sample characteristics (age, gender, injury type), failure (graft or clinical failure), and outcome (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], functional outcome, and clinical outcome). The studies were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using the Review Manager (RevMan, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) software, version 5.4. The random-effects model was used to calculate pooled ratio from each study based on the heterogeneity. The Cochrane I-squared (I²) test was conducted to determine the heterogeneity. The results of the studies are presented in a forest plot with the pooled risk ratio (RR).

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Results

In the initial screening, 163 studies were retrieved ([Fig. 1]). Among the ten remaining studies, two did not have a primary outcome (success rate),[12] [15] one included skeletally-immature patients,[16] and one did not have adequate control.[17] In the end, we found five studies[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis after the searching strategies were applied. Two studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs)[18] [19] and three were cohort studies.[20] [21] [22]

Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart.

The appraisal of the studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tools showed that all of them were considered good in terms of methodological quality and lack of the possibility of bias in their design, conduct and analysis ([Table 1]). [Table 2] shows the characteristics of the studies. including the intraoperative details. [Table 3] shows the outcome parameters measured for each study.

Table 1

Study	Items on the Joanna -Briggs Institute's tools for critical appraisal
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Castoldi et al.[18] (2020)	Y	Y	Y	NA	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Getgood et al.[19] (2020)	Y	Y	Y	NA	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Eggeling et al.[21] (2022)	Y	Y	Y	NA	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Rowan et al.[22] (2019)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Dejour et al.[20] (2013)	Y	Y	Y	NA	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y

Table 2

Study	Type	Level of evidence	No. of patients						Mean Age (years)		Mean/ minimum follow-up (years)	Mean Time from Injury to Surgery (months)		Graft		Tensioning method	LET fixation	ACL fixation
			LET			Non-LET			LET	Non-LET		LET	Non-LET	ACL	LET
			M	F	T	M	F	T
Castoldi et al.[18] (2020)	RCT	2	47	13	60	43	18	61	26.2	25.9	19.4	NR	NR	BPTB	G	30 degrees of knee flexion	Suture fixation	Femoral/tibial side: absorbable interference screw
Getgood et al.[19] (2020)	RCT	2	151	155	306	151	161	312	19.1	18.8	2	9.3	8.1	H	ITB	60–70 degrees of knee flexion	Barbed Richards fixation staple	Femoral side: femoral cortical suspensory fixation; tibial side: tibial interference screw
Eggeling et al.[21] (2022)	C	3	13	10	23	35	20	55	33.3	31.9	2.4	NR	NR	BPTB, H, Q	ITB	45 degrees of knee flexion	Suture fixation	Femoral/tibial sides: interference screw
Rowan et al.[22] (2019)	C	3	34	21	55	120	98	218	26	33	2	NR	NR	ST + G	ITB	30 degrees of knee flexion	Fixation staple with spike	Femoral/tibial sides: absorbable interference screw
Dejour et al.[20] (2012)	C	3	20	5	25	17	8	25	21.4	27.5	2	10.78	12.96	BPTB	G	Full extension	Suture fixation	Femoral/tibial sides: interference screw

Table 3

Study	Failure (%LET vs. %control)	Outcome
		KOOS pain score	KOOS symptom score	KOOS ADL score	KOOS sports score	KOOS QoL score	Tegner score	International Knee Documentation Committee score	Lysholm score	Marx score
Castoldi et al.[18] (2020)	Graft failure: 5/38 (13%) vs. 12/42 (29%)	−	−	−	−	−	−	82.4 ± 11.2 vs. 81.1 ± 14.38	−	−
Getgood et al.[19] (2020)	Clinical failure: 72/291 (25%) vs. 120/298 (40%) (RR: 0.38; 95%CI: 0.21–0.52; p = 0.0001)	92.1 ± 0.6 vs. 91.9 ± 0.6	84.7 ± 0.8 vs. 84.6 ± 0.8	97 ± 0.4 vs. 97.2 ± 0.4	85.3 ± 1.1 vs. 85.1 ± 1.1	63.8 ± 18.9 vs. 58.4 ± 19.7	−	87.3 ± 0.8 vs. 86.8 ± 0.8	−	12.1 ± 5.5 vs. 12.7 ± 4.7
	Graft ailure: 11/291 (4%) vs. 34/298 (11%) (RR: 0.67; 95%CI, 0.36–0.83; p = 0.001)						−	−	−	−
Eggeling et al.[21] (2022)	Clinical failure: 3/23 (13%) vs. 6/55 (10.9%)	87.9 ± 14.6 vs. 87.9 ± 14.1	87.6 ± 15.4 vs. 87.3 ± 14.8	95.2 ± 8.2 vs. 93 ± 10	72.6 ± 25.9 vs. 76 ± 22.7	75.4 ± 1.3 vs. 74.9 ± 1.3	5.7 ± 1.3 vs. 5.9 ± 1.5	80.1 ± 14.9 vs. 77.5 ± 16.2	81.9 ± 14.2 vs. 83.8 ± 14.5	−
Rowan et al.[22] (2019)	Clinical failure: 0/46 (0%) vs. 13/125 (10.4%)	−	−	−	−	−	8.04 ± 1.35 vs. 75.4 ± 1.35	−	98 ± 11.2 vs. 90 ± 16.2	−
Dejour et al.[20] (2012)	Clinical failure: 0/25 (0%) vs. 2/25 (8%)	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−	−

In the present study, we found that the RR for failure was lower in the ACLR + LET group with the modified Lemaire rechnique than in the ACLR group, with low heterogeneity among the studies (RR = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.26 to 0.75; I² = 9%; p = 0.003) ([Fig. 2]).

Fig. 2 Risk ratio for failure in the group of ACLR + LET through the modified Lemaire technique and the ACLR group.

The meta-analysis showed a superiority of the ACLR + LET group with the modified Lemaire Technique regarding of the following outcomes on the KOOS: pain, activities of daily living (ADL), sports, and quality of life (QoL), with mean differences of 0.20 (95%CI: 0.10 to 0.30; p < 0.0001), -0.20 (95%CI: -0.26 to -0.13; p < 0.00001), 0.20 (95%CI: 0.02 to 0.38; p = 0.03) and 0.50 (95%CI: 0.29 to 0.71; p < 0.00001) respectively. However, there was no significant difference between the groups in the symptom scores on the KOOS, with a mean difference of 0.10 (95%CI: -0.03 to 0.2; p = 0.13). Neither were there were differences between the groups regarding the scores on the Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) and Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale (LKSS), with mean differences of 0.19 (95%CI: -0.49 to 0.87; p = 0.58) and 3.45 (95%CI: -6.22 to 13.22; p = 0.48) respectively. However, there was a significant difference regarding the scores on the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form, with a mean difference of 0.70 (95%CI: 0.57 to 0.83; p < 0.00001). Low heterogeneity was found in the scores on the KOOS and IKDC Subjective Knee Form , but high heterogeneity was found in TAS and LKSS scores. ([Fig. 3]).

Fig. 3 Forest Plot of the secondary outcome of the included studies.

 

MissingLinkText

Discussion

The most important findings of the current research were that, when compared with the ACLR group, the ACLR + LET with modified Lemaire presented a lower failure rate and significant superiority regarding the functional outcome based on the mean differences in pain, ADL, sports, and QoL domains.

When compared with the ACLR group, the ACLR + LET with modified Lemaire group was found to present a lower failure rate (RR = 0.44; I² = 9%; p = 0.003). The ACLR + LET with modified Lemaire group showed a significant superiority regarding the functional outcome based on the mean differences in the scores on the KOOS domains of pain, ADL, sports, and QoL (p < 0.00001; p < 0.03; p < 0.00001; and p < 0.00001 respectively) and the scores on the IKDC Subjective Knee Form (p < 00001).

Rotational stability was not recovered with isolated ACLR in a certain population.[23] Therefore, both intra- and extra-articular procedures were necessary to improve ACL stability, thus improving the ability to perform sports in this population. It is known that LET is one of the extra-articular procedures that preserves knee stability. Na et al.[23] compared isolated ACLR to ACLR combined with anterolateral extra-articular procedures, and they noticed that both techniques improved pivot-shift grades and graft failure rates. However, in the ACLR + LET group, there was an increased risk of knee stiffness and adverse events.[23] These findings explain the significantly better KOOS and IKDC scores in the group submitted to ACLR + LET with the modified Lemaire technique.

Various LET procedures, namely Lemaire, MacIntosh, and ALL reconstruction, are the choices to manage rotatory instability. However, a in a kinematic study published by Inderhaug et al.[10] in 2017, the authors found that ALL reconstruction is underconstrained procedure. Compared with ALL reconstruction, the modified Lemaire technique has been shown to present a low complication rate and to cause a reduction in pivot-shift instability. The modified Lemaire technique also showed good graft survival and PROMs in a high-risk population.¹ This may suggest that LET is an effective technique to restore joint stability to a knee with additional features of laxity.[2] [10]

In a meta-analysis, Onggo et al.[24] compared ACLR and ACLR + LET through any method, and the inclusion of studies with a minimum of two years of follow-up. They found improved stability (RR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.39 to 0.88) and improved clinical outcomes in the ACLR + LET group, shown by mean differences in the IKDC and Lysholm scores of 2.31 (95%CI: 0.54 to 4.09) and 2.71 (95%CI 0.68 to 4.75) respectively. In addition, there was less likelihood of graft rerupture in the ACLR + LET group, with an RR of 0.31 (95%CI: 0.17 to 0.58).[24] In a single-armed systematic review involving 851 patients who underwent ACLR + LET, Grassi et al.[25] showed favorable results in terms of KOOS scores, with 74% of the patients returning to their previous sports activities, as well as complication and failure rates of 8.0% and 3.6% respectively.

The combination of ACLR and LET has also been considered safe for the patients. Feller et al.[26] reported that, at the 12-month follow-up, a contact-related graft rupture occurred in one patient, accounting for 4% of the total. Two additional ACL injuries in the opposite knee were observed, making up 9% of the cases, with 1 of them being an ACL graft rupture at 11 months postoperatively and another occurring at 22 months. Furthermore, a separate incident of contralateral ACL graft rupture took place at the 26-month follow-up.[26] Concerns were raised about the potential for excessive restriction of the lateral compartment of the knee and the subsequent development of lateral compartment osteoarthritis in relation to LET. However, a meta-analysis by Devitt et al.[27] provided strong evidence that the addition of LET reduces the movement of the lateral compartment. Biomechanical studies support these clinical findings, showing that both anatomic ALL reconstruction and LET procedures can overly restrict the lateral compartment. On the contrary, a recent systematic review indicated that adding LET to ACLR does not increase long-term osteoarthritis rates. While there is insufficient evidence to determine whether adding LET to primary ACLR improves various outcomes, there is strong evidence that LET effectively reduces laxity in the lateral compartment, as demonstrated by stress radiography.[28] [29]

In the biomechanics study, there is still a controversy regarding ACLR + LET with the modified Lemaire technique. A laboratory study[10] with a fresh frozen cadaver found that this technique might have overconstrained knee kinematics. However, a pilot study by Di Benedetto et al.[30] on 16 patients aged 21 to 37 years who underwent ACLR + LET revealed reacquisition of sagittal knee stability and gait dynamics to the preoperative level. These findings are also supported by a meta-analysis by Feng et al.,[31] who reported that, in 1,745 patients, ACLR + LET provided reduced pivot-shif,t with an odds ratio of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.31 to 0.74), and better graft failure rate, with an odds ratio of 0.34 (95%CI: 0.20 to 0.55).

As a limitation of the present study, there is still a lack of raw data to make a more comprehensive functional outcome analysis. Therefore, future studies with large samples might be needed to find better evidence regarding the effectiveness of ACLR combined with LET through the modified Lemaire technique.

 

MissingLinkText

Conclusion

The combination of LET through the modified Lemaire technique and ACLR showed a reliable result to minimize the rate of graft rerupture, as well as superiority in terms of clinical outcomes compared with isolated ACLR due to its role in improving knee stability.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conflito de Interesses

Os autores não têm conflito de interesses a declarar.

Work developed at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, St. Carolus Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Trisakti University, Jakarta, Indonesia.

• Referências

• 1 Gans I, Retzky JS, Jones LC, Tanaka MJ. Epidemiology of Recurrent anterior cruciate ligament injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association Sports (Epidemiologia de lesões recorrentes do ligamento cruzado anterior em esportes da National Collegiate Athletic Association): O programa de vigilância de lesões, 2004-2014. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6 (06) 23 25967118777823
• 2 Mahmoud A, Torbey S, Honeywill C, Myers P. Lateral Extra-articular tenodesis combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is effective in knees with additional features of lateral, hyperextension, or increased rotational laxity: A matched cohort study. Arthroscopy 2022; 38 (01) 119-124
• 3 Nitri M, Rasmussen MT, Williams BT. et al. Uma avaliação robótica in vitro do ligamento anterolateral, Parte 2: Reconstrução do ligamento anterolateral combinada com a reconstrução do ligamento cruzado anterior. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (03) 593-601
• 4 Saita Y, Schoenhuber H, Thiébat G. et al. A hiperextensão do joelho e um côndilo lateral pequeno estão associados a uma maior instabilidade rotatória antero-lateral quantificada em pacientes com ruptura completa do ligamento cruzado anterior (LCA). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (03) 868-874
• 5 Herbst E, Arilla FV, Guenther D. et al. A tenodese extra-articular lateral não tem efeito em joelhos com lesão isolada do ligamento cruzado anterior. Arthroscopy 2018; 34 (01) 251-260
• 6 Williams A, Ball S, Stephen J, White N, Jones M, Amis A. A justificativa científica para o aumento da tenodese lateral da reconstrução intra-articular do LCA usando um procedimento "Lemaire" modificado. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (04) 1339-1344
• 7 Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Grassi A. et al. Reconstrução do LCA over-the-top mais tenodese lateral extra-articular com enxertos do tendão dos isquiotibiais: Avaliação prospectiva com acompanhamento mínimo de 20 anos. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (14) 3233-3242
• 8 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: Um estudo prospectivo comparativo de 502 pacientes do grupo de estudo SANTI. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (07) 1547-1557
• 9 Schon JM, Moatshe G, Brady AW. et al. A reconstrução anatômica do ligamento anterolateral do joelho leva a uma sobrecarga em qualquer ângulo de fixação. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (10) 2546-2556
• 10 Inderhaug E, Stephen JM, Williams A, Amis AA. Comparação biomecânica de procedimentos anterolaterais combinados com a reconstrução do ligamento cruzado anterior. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (02) 347-354
• 11 Cavaignac E, Mesnier T, Marot V. et al. Efeito da tenodese extra-articular lateral na incorporação do enxerto do ligamento cruzado anterior. Orthop J Sports Med 2020; 8 (11) 23 25967120960097
• 12 Mayr R, Sigloch M, Coppola C, Hoermann R, Iltchev A, Schmoelz W. A tenodese de Lemaire modificada reduz as forças do enxerto do ligamento cruzado anterior durante a carga de torque tibial interno. J Exp Orthop 2022; 9 (01) 45
• 13 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
• 14 Critical Appraisal Tools | JBI. [acessado em 25 de agosto de 2022]. Disponível em: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
• 15 Chiba D, Gale T, Nishida K. et al. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis contributes little to change in vivo kinematics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Um estudo controlado e randomizado. Am J Sports Med 2021; 49 (07) 1803-1812
• 16 Dean RS, DePhillipo NN, McGaver RS, LaPrade RF, Larson CM. Reconstrução combinada do ligamento cruzado anterior e tenodese extra-articular lateral em pacientes esqueleticamente imaturos: Técnica cirúrgica. Arthrosc Tech 2020; 9 (07) e897-e903
• 17 Declercq J, Schuurmans M, Tack L, Verhelst C, Truijen J. Combined lateral extra-articular tenodesis and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: risk of osteoarthritis. . [ Publicado on-line antes da impressão em 1° de abril de 2022] Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2022; ;—:
• 18 Castoldi M, Magnussen RA, Gunst S. et al. Um estudo controlado e randomizado de reconstrução do ligamento cruzado anterior com tendão patelar ósseo com e sem tenodese extra-articular lateral: 19 anos de acompanhamento clínico e radiológico. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (07) 1665-1672
• 19 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
• 20 Dejour D, Vanconcelos W, Bonin N, Saggin PR. Estudo comparativo entre os ossos do tendão patelar mono-bundle, o tendão hamstring double-bundle e os ossos do tendão patelar mono-bundle combinados com um procedimento extra-articular Lemaire modificado na reconstrução do ligamento cruzado anterior. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (02) 193-199
• 21 Eggeling L, Drenck TC, Frings J. et al. A tenodese extra-articular lateral adicional na reconstrução revisional do LCA não influencia o resultado de pacientes com frouxidão anterior de baixo grau no joelho. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022; 142 (02) 291-299
• 22 Rowan FE, Huq SS, Haddad FS. A tenodese extra-articular lateral com reconstrução do LCA demonstra melhores resultados relatados pelo paciente em comparação com a reconstrução do LCA isolada em um acompanhamento mínimo de 2 anos. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2019; 139 (10) 1425-1433
• 23 Na BR, Kwak WK, Seo HY, Seon JK. Clinical outcomes of anterolateral ligament reconstruction or lateral extra-articular tenodesis combined with primary acl reconstruction (Resultados clínicos da reconstrução do ligamento anterolateral ou tenodese extra-articular lateral combinada com a reconstrução primária do LCA): Uma revisão sistemática com meta-análise. Orthop J Sports Med 2021; 9 (09) 23 259671211023099
• 24 Onggo JR, Rasaratnam HK, Nambiar M. et al. Reconstrução do ligamento cruzado anterior isolada versus com tenodese extra-articular lateral com acompanhamento mínimo de 2 anos: uma meta-análise e revisão sistemática de ensaios clínicos randomizados. Am J Sports Med 2022; 50 (04) 1137-1145
• 25 Grassi A, Zicaro JP, Costa-Paz M. et al; Comitê de Artroscopia da ESSKA. Bons resultados em médio prazo e baixas taxas de frouxidão rotatória residual, complicações e falhas após a revisão da reconstrução do ligamento cruzado anterior (LCA) e tenodese extra-articular lateral (TEL). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (02) 418-431
• 26 Feller JA, Devitt BM, Webster KE, Klemm HJ. Augmentation of primary ACL reconstruction with a Modified Ellison Lateral Extra-articular tenodesis in high-risk patients (Aumento da reconstrução primária do LCA com tenodese extra-articular lateral de Ellison modificada em pacientes de alto risco): Um estudo piloto. Orthop J Sports Med 2021; 9 (08) 23 259671211021351
• 27 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 (Uma revisão sistemática com metanálise e síntese das melhores evidências). Orthop J Sports Med 2017; 5 (10) 23 25967117731767
• 28 Engebretsen L, Lew WD, Lewis JL, Hunter RE. The effect of an iliotibial tenodesis on intraarticular graft forces and knee joint motion (O efeito de uma tenodese iliotibial nas forças do enxerto intra-articular e no movimento da articulação do joelho). Am J Sports Med 1990; 18 (02) 169-176
• 29 Draganich LF, Reider B, Miller PR. Um estudo in vitro da tenodese do ligamento femorotibial anterolateral de Müller no joelho deficiente do ligamento cruzado anterior. Am J Sports Med 1989; 17 (03) 357-362
• 30 Di Benedetto P, Buttironi MM, Mancuso F, Roman F, Vidi D, Causero A. Kinetic and Kinematic analysis of ACL reconstruction in association with lateral-extrarticular tenodesis of the knee in revision surgery: a pilot study. Acta Biomed 2021; 92 (S3): e2021027
• 31 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

Publication History

Received: 27 March 2023

Accepted: 25 August 2023

Article published online:
10 April 2024