Economopoulos, Sofia C.

Background: Persistent mildly abnormal knee kinematics after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is an ongoing clinical problem. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of revision ACLR (rACLR), rACLR and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET), or isolated LET in patients with a grade ≥2 pivot shift after ACLR with an intact or partially torn graft and a new, symptomatic medial meniscal tear. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients with a new, symptomatic medial meniscal tear diagnosed after a primary ACLR was performed. Patients were included if they demonstrated a grade ≥2 pivot shift on physical examination with an intact or partially torn ACL graft. Exclusion criteria included complete graft rupture. The senior author’s management evolved in a practice change design from rACLR to rACLR with LET, to isolated LET over the study period. The primary outcomes were the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 2 years postoperatively. Results: A total of 47 patients, with 16 in the rACLR group, 12 in the rACLR and LET group, and 19 in the isolated LET group were included. Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. At 2 years, the rACLR group IKDC score was 86.1 ± 6.6 and was lower than the rACLR and LET group (91.9 ± 4.4; P = .009; 95% CI, –10.4 to −1.2) and the isolated LET group scores (91.7 ± 3.0; P = .004; 95% CI, –9.7 to −1.6). The Lysholm score was lower in the rACLR group (85.8 ± 6.3) when compared with the rACLR and LET group (91.8 ± 4.6; P = .03; 95% CI, –11.8 to −0.39). There was no difference in any Tegner scores at 2 years ( P = .09). Conclusion: In patients with grade ≥2 pivot shift after an ACLR with an intact or partially torn graft and a new, symptomatic medial meniscal tear, the addition of an LET with or without rACLR led to improved PROs compared with an isolated rACLR. An isolated LET in this patient population should be considered an acceptable treatment option.

Purpose To compare the surgical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring autograft (HA) plus lateral extra‐articular tenodesis (LET), isolated all‐soft tissue quadriceps autograft (QA), and isolated HA. Methods A retrospective review was performed comparing high‐risk patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with isolated HA, isolated QA, or HA + LET from August 2013 to January 2023. High‐risk patients, as determined by high‐grade pivot shift or generalized ligament laxity, with at least a 2‐year follow‐up, were included. Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were compared at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Retear rate, postoperative pivot‐shift grade, return to sport, and complications were recorded. Results In total, 159 patients (56 HA, 47 HA + LET, and 56 QA) were included. At 6 months postoperatively, the HA International Knee Documentation Committee score was significantly lower than that of the HA + LET and QA groups ( P < .0001). Similarly, the Lysholm score was significantly lower in the HA cohort at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively ( P < .0001‐.02). There was no difference in the rate of achieving the minimally important clinical difference between the cohorts for either of these outcome scores. The retear rate was significantly higher in the HA group (17.9%) compared to the HA + LET (4.3%) and QA (1.8%) cohorts ( P = .01). The rate of postoperative pivot shift of grade 2 or more was also higher in the isolated HA group ( P = .04). Conclusions The use of an all‐soft tissue QA or HA + LET for ACL reconstruction resulted in a lower retear rate and postoperative pivot‐shift grade compared to an isolated HA graft in high‐risk patients at 2 years postoperatively. There was no difference in the rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference between the cohorts. The QA and HA + LET reconstruction options may improve stability and decrease the failure rate compared with HA reconstruction alone. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.