Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Objectives: Lateral extraarticular tenodesis (LET) has been shown to decrease failure rate in settings of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in young, high-demand patients. However, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes and return to sports after patients who undergo revision ACL reconstruction LET compared to those without LET (control group). Methods: All patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with and without LET between January 2018 and February 2020 were queried at our institutional registry. The LET group was compared to the control group (revision ACL reconstruction without LET) were followed for a minimum of 24 months postsurgery to evaluate patients reported outcome measures, satisfaction, return to sports, rate of reoperation, and psychological readiness for return to sports (using the ACL-Return to Sport After Injury Scale, ACL-RSI). Results: A total of 81 patients with a mean follow-up of 2. 75 years were included. The LET group contained 37 patients (76% female) with a mean age of 26. 6 years and body mass index (BMI) of 23. 5 kg/m² compared to 44 patients (80% female) with mean age of 28. 2 years and BMI of 26. 9 kg/m². There were no significant differences between the LET and control groups with respect to mean postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (47. 7 vs 48. 3, p = 0. 46) and PROMIS Mobility scales (53. 3 vs 52. 9, p = 0. 97). In addition, there were no differences in postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (78. 9 vs 78. 3, p=0. 45), Marx (7. 9 vs 7. 2, p = 0. 64), or Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (73. 1 vs 74. 2, p = 0. 38) scores. The same held true with regards to postoperative ACL-RSI scores between the groups (43. 3 vs 50. 1, p = 0. 38). Return to play rates after revision ACL were similar in the LET group compared to the control group (55% vs 45%, p = 0. 40) with similar confidence to play their pre-injury sport (scale out of 100, 58. 2 vs 56. 2, p = 0. 82). Lastly, overall reoperation rates were similar between the groups with the LET group having a rate of 21. 2% compared to 19. 4% for the control group. When isolated for revision due to graft tear, the LET group had a re-revision rate of 13. 5% compared to 6. 8% in the control group (p = 0. 31). Conclusions: Satisfaction and patient reported outcome scores after revision ACL reconstruction are good with or without LET. While both groups have similar rates of return to play and reoperation at greater than 2- year follow-up, these results suggest the addition of LET may provide similar outcomes in high-risk patients when compared to isolated revision ACL reconstruction.
Gould et al. (Mon,) studied this question.