Literature Decoded

Living reprintoriginally published in Medicina 2025CC BY 4.0Read the version of record Opt out

Literature DecodedLiving reprint
Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures: A Systematic Review

Systematic review first published in Medicina (2025), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Filippo Migliorini1*ORCID iD 0000-0001-7220-1221, Ludovico Lucenti2ORCID iD 0000-0002-9514-9304, Ying Ren Mok3, Tommaso Bardazzi4, Riccardo D’Ambrosi5ORCID iD 0000-0002-1216-792X, Angelo De Carli6, Domenico Paolicelli6, Nicola Maffulli7ORCID iD 0000-0002-5327-3702

1Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Academic Hospital of Bolzano (SABES-ASDAA), 39100 Bolzano, Italy; tommaso.bardazzi@sabes.it; Department of Life Sciences, Health, and Health Professions, Link Campus University, 00165 Rome, Italy2Department of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy; ludovico.lucenti@gmail.com3Division of Sports Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore 119074, Singapore; ying_ren_mok@nuhs.edu.sg4Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Academic Hospital of Bolzano (SABES-ASDAA), 39100 Bolzano, Italy; tommaso.bardazzi@sabes.it5IRCCS Galeazzi Hospital, Sant’Ambrogio, 20157 Milan, Italy; riccardo.dambrosi@hotmail.it; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy6Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italyn.maffulli@qmul.ac.uk (N.M.)7Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italyn.maffulli@qmul.ac.uk (N.M.); School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University Faculty of Medicine, Stoke on Trent ST4 7QB, UK; Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4DG, UK*Corresponding author

Reprinted 2026-10-01 18 min read Living reprint · journal article Version of record: Medicina 2025Licence: CC BY 4.0

Reading mode
In plain languageSystematic review first published in Medicina (2025), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Systematic review first published in Medicina (2025), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

Bottom line

What the evidence supports

How to read it

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Limitations

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Disclaimer

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The paper

Full manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The present systematic review investigated the efficacy of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) as lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAPs) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. ACL reconstruction using LEAP may reduce graft rupture and rotatory laxity and allow a quicker return to sports. The outcomes of interest were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), return to sport, laxity, failure rate, and safety profile. Materials and Methods: The present systematic review followed the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. In December 2024, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were accessed without constraints. All clinical investigations evaluating LEAP for ACL reconstruction were considered. Only studies that considered LET and ALL as LEAP were considered. Only studies using a hamstring tendon autograft associated with LET or ALL were considered. Results: Data from 27 clinical studies (3423 patients) were retrieved. The mean length of follow-up was 61.8 ± 39.5 months. ACL reconstruction using LEAP led to a statistically significant improvement in the Lysholm score (p < 0.01) and IKDC (p < 0.01). The mean joint laxity, as measured by the arthrometer, was 1.5 ± 1.8 mm. Finally, 72.3% (623 of 668) of patients returned to their pre-injury level of sport at a mean of 6.3 ± 4.4 months. At the last follow-up, the LET group showed greater IKDC (p = 0.04). On the other hand, there was a statistically significant greater rate of patients positive to the Lachman test (p < 0.01), return to sport (p < 0.01), and reoperation (p = 0.01). No significant differences were found in Lysholm scores (p = 0.6), Tegner scores (p = 0.2), arthrometer measurements (p = 0.2), Pivot shift test results (p = 0.1), time to return to sport (p = 0.3), and failure rates (p = 0.7). Conclusions: LEAP for ACL reconstructions seems to be effective and safe. Most patients returned to their pre-injury level of sport after a mean of 6 months. LET-based ACL reconstruction may be associated with greater clinical outcomes and a higher reoperation rate compared to ALL-based reconstruction.

Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament; lateral extraarticular tenodesis; PROMs; return to sport; complications

Introduction

The prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries among young athletes has risen, with an annual increase of approximately 2.3% over the past two decades1,2,3,4,5,6. This trend is primarily attributed to the increasing involvement of youth in high-intensity competitive sports7,8. While traditional single-bundle ACL reconstruction has shown promise, concerns persist regarding residual rotational instability9,10,11,12,13,14. Previous studies have indicated that residual rotational instability persists in up to 25% of patients, often leading to suboptimal outcomes15,16,17. Researchers have explored various techniques to enhance stability, including anatomic and double-bundle reconstructions18,19,20. More recently, attention has shifted towards lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAP) for ACL reconstruction, specifically anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET)21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28. ACL reconstruction using LEAP may reduce graft rupture and rotatory laxity and allow a quicker return to sport29,30. The optimal surgical method is still debated, and previous investigations have mainly focused on PROMs, knee laxity, return to sport, and safety31,32,33,34,35. Initially introduced by Lemaire36, LET has demonstrated improved anterolateral stability and clinical outcomes when combined with ACL reconstruction in several randomised controlled trials25,29,33,37,38,39,40,41,42,43. ALL has also emerged as an alternative for addressing rotational instability2,24,40,44,45,46,47,48,49,50. Given the advancements in understanding the anterolateral ligament complex, ALL offers a potentially more anatomically accurate reconstruction47,51,52,53,54. Despite these developments, evidence on clinical outcomes between LET and ALL in ACL reconstruction is still limited, and the optimal technique is still under debate. Previous biomechanical studies using cadaveric models have suggested superior properties for LET compared to ALL55,56. This systematic review aims to bridge this knowledge gap by evaluating the outcomes of LEAP and comparing outcomes of ALL and LET in ACL reconstruction regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), return to sport, joint laxity, and complication rate. The endpoint choice relates to their common use and recognised validity in clinical practice and research57,58.

Methods

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

All clinical investigations evaluating LEAP for ACL reconstruction were considered. Only studies that considered LET and ALL as LEAP procedures were considered. Only studies using a hamstring tendon autograft associated with LET or ALL were considered. According to the authors’ capabilities, only articles published in the following languages were included: English, Italian, German, French, and Spanish. Eligible studies had to be published in peer-reviewed journals. Only studies with levels I to III of evidence, according to the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM),59 were included. Opinions, editorials, letters, and reviews were excluded, as were studies involving computational analyses, in vitro or animal experiments, biomechanical assessments, or cadaveric research. Studies focusing on allografts or synthetic grafts were also deemed ineligible. Finally, only studies with a minimum follow-up period of six months were considered, as this is the established cut-off for allowing sports resumption60,61. A shorter follow-up period could impair the assessment of the outcome60,61.

2.2. Search Strategy

The present systematic review followed the guidelines defined in the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement62. The following PICOT framework was established:

  • P (Problem): ACL reconstruction;
  • I (Intervention): LEAP;
  • C (Comparison): LET vs. ALL;
  • O (Outcomes): PROMs, complications, return to sport, laxity;
  • T (Timing): minimum six months of follow-up.

2.3. Data Source

EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were accessed in December 2024 without additional filters or temporal constraints. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) used in the database search were as follows: (“Anterior Cruciate Ligament”[Mesh] OR “Anterior Cruciate Ligament/physiopathology”[Mesh] OR “Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries”[Mesh] OR “Arthralgia/etiology”[Mesh] OR “Athletes”[Mesh] OR “Joint Instability/etiology”[Mesh] OR “Knee Joint”[Mesh] OR “Knee Joint / pathology”[Mesh] OR “Ligaments, Articular/injuries”[Mesh] OR anterior cruciate ligament OR Knee OR rotational instability OR Rotational laxity OR Knee injuries OR ACL OR anterior cruciate injuries OR ACL injuries) AND (“Anterior Cruciate Ligament/surgery”[Mesh] OR “Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries/surgery”[Mesh] OR “Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction”[Mesh] OR “Hamstring Tendons/surgery”[Mesh] OR “Hamstring Tendons/transplantation”[Mesh] OR “Joint Instability/surgery”[Mesh] OR “Knee Injuries/surgery”[Mesh] OR “Knee Joint/surgery”[Mesh] OR “Ligaments, Articular/surgery”[Mesh] OR “Tendon Transfer”[Mesh] OR “Tendons/transplantation”[Mesh] OR “Transplantation, Autologous”[Mesh] OR ACL reconstruction OR anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction OR Hamstring OR hamstring tendon graft OR reconstruction) AND (“Suture Techniques”[Mesh] OR “Tenodesis”[Mesh] OR “Tenodesis/methods”[Mesh] OR Anterolateral complex OR Anterolateral instability OR Anterolateral ligament OR Anterolateral ligament reconstruction OR Anterolateral reconstruction OR Combined with extraarticular tenodesis OR extra-articular reconstruction OR extra-capsular augmentation OR Lateral extra articular tenodesis OR Lateral tenodesis OR Lemaire procedure OR LET OR Modified Lemaire OR tenodesis OR ALL) AND (“Lysholm Knee Score”[Mesh] OR “Patient Reported Outcome Measures”[Mesh] OR “Postoperative Complications”[Mesh] OR “Quality of Life”[Mesh] OR “Range of Motion, Articular”[Mesh] OR “Recovery of Function”[Mesh] OR “Reoperation”[Mesh] OR “Return to Sport”[Mesh] OR “Treatment Outcome”[Mesh] OR graft failure OR graft rupture OR Pivot shift test OR Pivot-shift OR return to sport OR rotational stability OR PROMS OR Patient reported outcomes OR Lachman test).

2.4. Outcomes of Interest

Two authors (D.P. and T.B.) independently conducted data extraction. For each study, the following generalities were collected: author, year and journal of publication, study design, and length of the follow-up (months). The following data at baseline were retrieved: number of patients, number of women, mean age, and mean BMI. Data on the following PROMs at baseline and the last follow-up were retrieved: Lysholm score58, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC)63, and Tegner Activity Scale58. According to previously published reports, the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) is 13.8/100 for the IKDC, 9.9/100 for the Lysholm, and 0.5/10 for the Tegner Activity Scale64,65,66,67. Data on the KT-1000 and KT-2000 arthrometer68, Pivot-shift, and Lachman tests were collected at the last follow-up to evaluate laxity. Data on the level of return and time to return to sport (months) were also collected. Data concerning failure (graft ruptures) and reoperation rates were extracted. Data extraction was performed using Microsoft Office Excel version 16.0 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).

2.5. Methodology Quality Assessment

Two authors (T.B. and D.P.) performed the methodological quality assessment. The revised Risk of Bias assessment tool (RoB2)69,70, part of the Cochrane tool for assessing the Risk of Bias in randomised controlled trials (RoB)71, was used. The following endpoints were considered: bias arising from the randomisation process, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias from missing outcome data, bias in the measurement of the outcome, and bias in the selection of reported results. Nonrandomised controlled trials (non-RCTs) were evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool72. Seven domains of potential bias in non-RCTs were assessed. Two domains assess possible confounding factors and the nature of patient selection before the start of the comparative intervention. Bias in the classification of interventions is evaluated using another domain. The final four domains assess methodological quality after the intervention comparison has been implemented and relate to deviations from previously intended interventions, missing data, erroneous measurement of outcomes, and bias in the selection of reported outcomes. The figure of the ROBINS-I was elaborated using the Robvis Software (Risk-of-bias VISualization, Riskofbias.info, Bristol, UK)73.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The main author (F.M.) performed the statistical analyses following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions74. Descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS software, version 25 (International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Baseline comparability was assessed using the t-test, with p > 0.05 considered satisfactory. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation were used to report continuous data. The odd ratio (OR) was used as the effect measure for comparing dichotomous data. The unpaired t-test and the χ2 test were performed for continuous and dichotomic data, respectively, with values of p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

3.1. Search Result

The systematic literature search resulted in the identification of 2023 articles. After removing duplicates, the abstracts of 1267 articles were screened for eligibility. A total of 1016 articles were excluded for the following reasons: mismatch with the predefined study design criteria (N = 384), full-text unavailability (N = 546), and language limitations (N = 86). Of the remaining 251 studies, another 224 were excluded after full-text evaluation. Consequently, a final selection of 27 studies was included in this systematic review. The literature search results are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of the literature search.

3.2. Methodological Quality Assessment

The risk of bias in the 21 included non-RCTs was assessed using the ROBINS-I risk of bias. The risk of bias due to confounding was moderate in nearly three-fourths of the included non-RCTs. No bias was identified due to deviations from the intended intervention or the selection of reported results. Moreover, the risk of bias in all the other domains was judged to be low or moderate for nearly all studies. Only one article had significant issues in participant selection and was therefore classified as having a high risk of bias. Overall, 75% of the articles presented a low risk of bias, and the remaining non-RTS was found ut a moderate RoB, indicating an acceptable methodological quality (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Figure 2. ROBINS-I of the non-RCTs.

The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (ROB 2) was used to evaluate the six included RCTs. The analysis suggested a low risk of bias for half the articles in the first and third domains, while a moderate risk emerged in the remaining articles. Al other domains presented no concerns for any of the included RCTs. The overall RoB was estimated to be low for three articles and moderate for the others, suggesting acceptable methodological quality. Figure 3 shows the bias risk distribution across the included RCTs.

Figure 3
Figure 3. ROB2 of the RCTs.

3.3. Patient Demographics

Data from 3423 patients were retrieved, 34.2% of whom (767 of 2245) were women. The mean length of follow-up was 61.8 ± 39.5 months. The mean age was 25.1 ± 4.3 years, and the mean BMI was 23.6 ± 1.6 kg/m2. Table 1 shows the generalities and demographics of the study.

Table 1. Characteristics and patient baseline of the included studies.
Author and YearJournalProcedureFollow-Up
(Months)		Patients (n)Women (n)Mean Age (Years)Mean BMI
Arnaud Gonnachon et al., 202475Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol.ALL5441824.0
Coquard et al., 202276Arthrosc. Sports Med. Rehabil.ALL61114737.724.6
El-Azab H et al., 202377InjuryLET2450828.0
Ferretti et al., 200978Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc.LET721002335.0
Ferretti et al., 202279Am. J. Sports Med.LET188791426.1
Guzzini et al., 201680Int. Orthop.LET73181624.9
Heard et al., 202381J. IsakosLET2430615519.124.0
Helito CP et al., 202382ArthroscopyALL293427.2
ALL299629.6
Ibrahim et al., 201783Am. J. Sports Med.ALL2756026.0
Joseph et al., 202084J. Exp. Orthop.LET9635723.023.5
Laboudie et al., 202285Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc.ALL361024016.322.1
Lee et al., 202386Orthop. J. Sports Med.ALL293930.419.7
Lee et al., 202487Sci. Rep.LET12241129.425.8
Legnani et al., 202288J. Comp. Eff. Res.LET7416526.822.9
Marcacci et al., 200989Am. J. Sports Med.LET1325412
Meynard et al., 202090Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res.LET120501728.525.4
Monaco et al., 202291Am. J. Sports Med.LET44712716.1
Pioger et al., 202292Am. J. Sports Med.ALL101100925.8
Porter et al., 202293ANZ J. Surg.LET24804223.021.3
Saragaglia et al., 201394Int. Orthop.LET76682229.7
Sonnery-Cottet et al., 201595Am. J. Sports Med.ALL32922424.0
Sonnery-Cottet et al., 201796Am. J. Sports Med.ALL352216921.8
Thaunat et al., 201797Am. J. Sports Med.ALL3654816324.3
Vadalà et al., 201398Int. Orthop.LET45282826.0
Yang et al., 202399ArthroscopyALL4835725.026.6
Zaffagnini et al., 2006100Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc.ALL6025726.7
Zaffagnini et al., 2008101Scand. J. Med. Sci. SportsALL46351526.025.1

3.4. Baseline Comparability

Between the groups, baseline comparability was evidenced in the mean length of follow-up, mean age, mean BMI, female/male ratio, Lysholm score, and IKDC score (Table 2).

Table 2. Baseline comparability.
EndpointALL
(N = 2444)		LET
(N = 979)		p
Women31.4% (380 of 1210)39.5% (387 of 979)0.6
Mean follow-up (weeks)61.5 ± 34.262.7 ± 50.40.1
Mean age25.4 ± 3.624.2 ± 5.60.4
Mean BMI23.5 ± 2.023.7 ± 1.20.9
Lysholm62.2 ± 15.158.7 ± 12.00.5
IKDC58.0 ± 18.258.5 ± 12.40.7

3.5. Efficacy of LEAP

ACL reconstruction using LEAP led to a statistically significant improvement in the Lysholm score (MD 31.4; p < 0.01) and IKDC (MD 29.1; p < 0.01) (Table 3). Good results were also found at the last follow-up in the Tegner score (6.8 ± 2.0); however, given the missing data at admission, its improvement was not analysed.

Table 3. Results of PROMs (MD: mean difference; FU: follow-up; IKDC: International Knee Documentation Committee).
PROMsAt BaselineAt Last FUMDp
Lysholm60.3 ± 13.691.8 ± 10.731.4<0.01
IKDC58.2 ± 16.387.2 ± 10.529.1<0.01

The Pivot shift and Lachman tests were positive in 15.8% (105 of 666) and 13.0% (87 of 668 patients), respectively. The mean joint laxity measured with the arthrometer was 1.5 ± 1.8 mm. Finally, 72.3% (623 of 668) of patients returned to the pre-injury level of sport at a mean of 6.3 ± 4.4 months. These data are shown in greater detail in Table 4.

Table 4. Results of laxity tests, Tegner activity scale, and return to sport.
EndpointAt Last Follow-Up
Tegner6.8 ± 2.0
KT 1000 (mm)1.5 ± 1.8
Pivot shift15.8% (105 of 666)
Lachman test13.0% (87 of 668)
Return to sport72.3% (623 of 862)
Time to return to sport (months)6.3 ± 4.4

3.6. Comparison of ALL Versus LET

At the last follow-up, the IKDC scored greater in the LET group (MD 5.6; p = 0.04). No differences were found in the Lysholm (p = 0.6) and Tegner (p = 0.2) scores. No difference was found in laxity measured with the arthrometer (p = 0.2) and in the Pivot shift test (p = 0.1). On the other hand, the ALL group evidenced a statistically significantly greater rate of patients testing positive for the Lachman test (OR 3.1; p <0.01). No difference was found in the time to return to sport (p = 0.3), while a statistically significant higher rate of return to sport was found in the LET group (OR 0.5; p < 0.01). These results are shown in greater detail in Table 5 and Table 6.

Table 5. Results of PROMs, laxity tests, and return to sport (IKDC: International Knee Documentation Committee; MD: mean difference; OR: odds ratio).
EndpointALLLETMeasureEffect Sizep
Lysholm90.8 ± 11.393.5 ± 9.0MD2.70.6
IKDC84.1 ± 12.389.8 ± 8.0MD5.60.04
Tegner7.2 ± 1.95.3 ± 1.9MD−1.90.2
Arthrometer (mm)1.1 ± 1.52.0 ± 2.1MD0.90.2
Pivot shift13.0% (32 of 247)17.4% (73 of 419)OR0.70.1
Lachman test20.3% (50 of 246)8.8% (37 of 422)OR3.1<0.01
Table 6. Percentage and time of return to sport for both procedures.
EndpointALLLETMeasureEffect Sizep
Return to sport67.6% (375 of 555)80.8% (248 of 307)OR0.5<0.01
Time to return to sport (months)6.4 ± 4.46.1 ± 0.2MD−0.30.3

ALL demonstrated a lower reoperation rate (OR 0.7; p = 0.01). No difference was observed in the failure rate (p = 0.9). These results are shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Results of the outcome: complications (OR: odds ratio).
EndpointALL
(N = 2444)		LET
(N = 979)		ORp
Failure3.0% (69 of 2333)3.2% (27 of 838)0.90.7
Reoperations9.6% (183 of 1906)13.8% (54 of 392)0.70.01

Discussion

According to the main findings of the present systematic review, LEAP for ACL reconstruction seems to be effective and safe. ACL reconstruction using LEAP led to a statistically significant improvement in PROMs and stability, with the Lysholm and the IKDC scores increasing beyond their MCID64,65,66. Most patients returned to their pre-injury level of sport at a mean of 6 months. The LET subgroup was associated with greater outcomes than ALL; however, the value of the IKDC did not overcome its MCID, and therefore, its clinical relevance remains uncertain. Conversely, ACL reconstruction using LET is associated with a higher reoperation rate. On the other hand, no significant differences were found between the two groups in the Lysholm score (p = 0.6) and Tegner score (p = 0.2). These results may encourage ACL reconstruction using ALL (Table 8).

Table 8. Advantages and disadvantages of LET and ALL.
FeatureLET AdvantagesLET DisadvantagesALL AdvantagesALL Disadvantages
Clinical OutcomesHigher IKDC score at last follow-upHigher reoperations rateGood rotational stability and lower graft failure ratesLower IKDC score
Return to sportGreater percentage of return to pre-injury levelsNo significant difference in time to return to sportComparable time to return to sportLower percentage of return to pre-injury sport level
Laxity and StabilityLower positive rate on Lachman test (better anterior knee stability)Slightly higher laxity noted in arthrometer and Pivot shift testsSuperior in reducing anterior translation and residual rotational instabilityHigher positive rate on Lachman test (worse anterior knee stability)
ComplicationsEffective for rotational stabilityMay cause overconstraint and stiffness. Increased risk of surgical site complications (e.g., infections and fibrosis)Fewer complications and better anterior knee stabilitySome residual anterior knee laxity observed
Reoperation RatesHigher ratesLower ratesRisks of surgical failure in chronic conditions

Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction is the gold standard for restoring joint stability and function after an ACL tear102,103. LEAP has emerged as an additional procedure to enhance rotational stability following ACL reconstruction, improving general outcomes and lowering the risk of failure104,105,106. LET and ALL ACL reconstructions are examples of LEAP that improve rotational stability29,31. LET reinforces the lateral side of the knee and usually involves fixing a part of the ITB to the femur above the knee joint. In contrast, ALL consists of a more anatomical reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament with a free graft between the tibia and the femur107,108. LET and ALL ACL reconstructions vary mainly in surgical execution and anatomical targets107,109,110,111. There has yet to be a consensus on the ideal surgical procedure, and numerous studies have evaluated these techniques over the past years, focusing on PROMs, knee laxity, return to sport, and safety31,32,33.

Previous studies evaluating LEAP for ACL reconstruction have shown controversial results. Coquard et al.76, comparing 222 patients treated with traditional ACL reconstruction versus ALL ACL reconstruction, also reported no significant difference in the Tegner score. Bo-Ram et al.33 conducted a meta-analysis including 20 studies involving 2376 patients comparing ACL in isolation versus ACL combined with LEAPs (LET or ALL). Despite some limitations related to the heterogeneity of the reported studies and the subjectivity in measurement, ACL reconstruction using LEAPs showed slight improvements in subjective scores33. LET and ALL reduced instability, but ALL performed slightly better, given its more anatomic approach33. ALL, in particular, significantly improves rotational stability and graft failure reduction when combined with ACL reconstruction33. Boksh et al.112 recently conducted a systematic review evaluating ten comparative clinical studies (793 patients): 390 patients underwent isolated ACL reconstruction, and 403 received ACL reconstruction with augmentation (ALL or LET). Augmentation significantly improved IKDC scores compared to isolated ACL reconstruction and demonstrated better rotational stability112. The graft failure rate in this cohort was considerably lower, and few complications were reported112. Ho Jong Ra et al.113 conducted a systematic review of 16 studies with 1442 patients, subdivided into 1048 receiving ACL reconstruction and ALL and 394 receiving ACL reconstruction using LET. Both techniques yield similar patient-reported functional outcomes, but ALL provides superior anterior knee stability compared to LET, with fewer complications113. While effective for rotational stability, LET has limitations due to overconstraint, non-anatomic graft orientation, and tension variability113.

In the present study, joint laxity after LEAP was evaluated clinically using arthrometry, the Pivot Shift, and Lachman tests. A few patients still exhibited residual laxity, as assessed through the physical examination. Ibrahim et al.83 found less anterior translation in the ALL group than in traditional reconstruction in 110 patients. Both procedures (ALL and LET) improve rotational stability33. ALL reconstruction may lead to better rotational stability, a lower risk of stiffness, and a lower rate of complications compared to LET33. Addressing rotational instability is crucial for decreasing secondary soft tissue damage risk114. LET seems to be associated with a higher risk of stiffness. A systematic review of 20 studies reported that knee stiffness was present in 10 studies (1284 patients), with a loss of full extension or flexion of >5°33. The variability in individuating instability and knee stiffness among different studies may be attributed to the varying definitions of stiffness and stability used by other authors33. In detail, a higher rate of patients in the ALL group was positive for the Lachman test, suggesting a higher residual anterior knee laxity compared to the LET group33. However, no differences were found between ALL and LET when tested with the KT-1000 arthrometer and the Pivot Shift test. A negative Lachman test has been described in most patients treated with LET80. On the other hand, LET combined with ACL reconstruction had significantly worse anterior knee stability than ALL in ACL reconstruction, with a higher proportion of knees graded as 2 or 3 on the Lachman test of 10.8% in the LET and 1.5% in the ALL113. The large difference in these findings across studies can be attributed to the low accuracy of the Lachman test115.

In the present investigation, 72.3% of patients returned to sport within an average of 6.3 months after surgery. This finding emphasises the potential of LEAP ACL reconstruction in restoring knee function and enabling athletes to return to their previous competitive levels. A retrospective single-centre investigation comparing traditional versus ALL ACL reconstruction reported similar results in return to sport at the same level and return to competitive sport75. A greater rate of return to sport was seen in the LET group compared to the ALL group75. However, no significant differences were observed regarding the time to return to sport75. This finding regarding LET must be balanced with the associated higher reoperation rate observed in this cohort. The reason for reoperation is related to several complications91. LET can lead to overconstraint, particularly with techniques that involve rigid fixation or improper tensioning, which may cause limited knee motion and an increased risk of joint degeneration116,117,118. Furthermore, techniques using staples or other fixation devices have been associated with hardware irritation and subsequent hardware removal81. Some patients undergoing combined procedures required secondary meniscal procedures, such as meniscectomies or repairs, but these were not directly linked to LET119. Infections, hemarthrosis, cyclops lesions, and fibrous nodules are other causes of reoperation120. Marshall et al.120 have reported that the most frequent complications associated with LET are graft failure, hematoma, infection, chronic pain, tunnel convergence, fixation device migration, muscular hernia, peroneal nerve palsy, and knee stiffness. The most frequent complications that do not influence the reoperation rate are anterior knee pain, symptomatic tibial tunnel cyst, dysesthesia, hemarthrosis, and growth disturbance91. While LET may provide higher early functional improvements, it is also associated with a higher risk of reoperation owing to the more invasive nature of the procedure. Indeed, LET usually requires extensive soft tissue dissection, potentially leading to complications such as stiffness, pain, or surgical site infections that may require reoperation33,121,122.

According to the present systematic review, LET is associated with a slightly earlier functional recovery. Therefore, it may be suitable for specific cases needing a quick return to functional activities. Complications, including graft failure and reoperation, must be considered when deciding on the best surgical treatment33. The reoperation rate due to graft rupture is lower with LEAP than with isolated ACL reconstruction75,104,123,124. Pettinari et al.104 conducted a retrospective, nonrandomised, matched-pair comparative analysis on 1102 patients over the age of 30. The LEAP group had a significantly lower graft failure rate—0.7% in the LEAP group versus 2.7% in the isolated ACL reconstruction group104. The authors also reported that patients aged 30-35 had a significantly higher risk of graft failure than those aged over 35 years old104. Furthermore, the LEAP group had a significantly lower rate of secondary meniscectomy, 2.2% versus 5.6%, compared to the isolated ACL reconstruction group104. Given its lower costs and comparable clinical outcomes, ACL reconstruction using LET is more cost-effective than ALL125. The lower incidence of graft failure in augmented ACL reconstruction can be explained by the shared spreading of load, which reduces micromovement of the graft in the tunnel, allowing a successful bone–tendon healing interface and a satisfactory return to sport96,126,127. In the present investigation, no differences were observed in failure rates between the LET and ALL groups. Both groups evidenced similar complication rates. This finding validates the overall safety profile of both procedures. Nevertheless, although not statistically significant, LET evidenced a greater rate of reoperations (9.6% versus 13.8%). Additional investigations are required to establish possible differences in the long term. Guzzini et al.80, in a case series of 16 elite female football players treated with LET ACL reconstruction, reported no complications or re-ruptures, showing excellent outcomes in terms of stability, functional recovery, and return to sport. Similar results were found by Heard et al.81, who reported that LET ACL reconstruction leads to a significantly lower graft rupture than traditional ACL reconstruction. Mechanisms behind the reported differences between LET and ALL are not fully understood. Some authors have conducted a biomechanical comparison of these techniques using cadaveric specimens, showing no data supporting the advantage of one over the other but indicating that both procedures led to optimal biomechanical results128.

Several limitations are evident. The heterogeneity of the included studies in terms of follow-up length, variability in demographics, and differences in surgical techniques and rehabilitation protocols may reduce the validity of the present study’s results. Furthermore, this study mainly focused on clinical results and PROMs without evaluating any other diagnostic tests or imaging techniques, such as MRI, to assess the healing of the ligament. Only studies with a minimum follow-up of six months were considered. Arthroscopic management of ACL tears involves structural modifications to the knee joint, and the recovery process and the durability of outcomes often extend beyond the early postoperative period. Studies with a follow-up period shorter than 24 months may fail to capture late complications, secondary procedures, or the full extent of functional recovery, particularly in active populations like athletes. In addition, a minimum follow-up of 24 months is widely accepted in orthopaedic and sports medicine research as a standard for evaluating mid- to long-term outcomes. This timeframe ensures that the reported results reflect stable clinical and functional outcomes rather than transient or incomplete recoveries.

Most studies lacked a control group. Given the lack of quantitative data on the endpoints of interest, a meta-analysis was not possible. Given the lack of quantitative data and missing information, the time from injury to surgery was not analysed separately. Ferretti et al.78 reported that the Tegner score improves significantly in LEAP ACL reconstruction in 100 patients, but a lower Tegner score is observed in patients with chronic tears. Another study82 found no differences in knee stability, PROMs, complications, or failures in 130 acute versus chronic ALL ACL reconstructions, showing promising results regardless of the timing of surgery after injury. The lack of long-term data, particularly regarding graft longevity and long-term joint health, remains an essential gap in the literature76. While valuable, the reliance on PROMs and clinical tests may not fully capture the results of LEAP in facilitating return to sport, preventing new injuries, or mitigating degenerative changes. Furthermore, other vital tests reported in only a few studies that can give important information should be examined, including single-leg hop distance (SLHD), Limb Symmetry Index (LSI), and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). More studies are needed to compare these two procedures and explore their relative risks and advantages by establishing standardised criteria with defined outcomes. Future high-quality comparative studies with longer follow-up periods and RCTs are needed to validate the present results in a clinical setting.

Conclusions

LEAP for ACL reconstructions seems to be effective and safe. This procedure restores rotational stability, leading to good clinical results, optimal functional outcomes, and great patient satisfaction. Most patients returned to their pre-injury level of sport at a mean of 6 months. LET ACL reconstruction may be associated with greater clinical outcomes, but, on the other hand, it could be associated with a higher reoperation rate compared to ALL reconstruction.

Declarations

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Author Contributions

F.M.: conceptualization, formal analysis, project administration, writing—original draft prepara-tion, writing—review and editing; L.L.: writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing; Y.R.M.: writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing; T.B.: formal analysis, methodology; R.D.: writing—review and editing, supervision; A.D.C.: supervision, project administration; D.P.: formal analysis, methodology; N.M.: supervision, project administration, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Sources

References

128 references, in the article's own order. Citation numbers in the text are this list's numbers (128 records are cited).

  1. ACL Tears in School-Aged Children and Adolescents Over 20 Years

    Beck N.A., Lawrence J.T.R., Nordin J.D., DeFor T.A., Tompkins M.

    2017Pediatrics 139:e20161877 · PMID 28228501doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1877

  2. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: A historical view

    D’Ambrosi R., Meena A., Arora E.S., Attri M., Schafer L., Migliorini F.

    2023Ann. Transl. Med. 11:364 · PMID 37675316doi:10.21037/atm-23-87

  3. Quadriceps tendon autograft for primary ACL reconstruction: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

    Migliorini F., Eschweiler J., Mansy Y.E., Quack V., Tingart M., Driessen A.

    2020Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 30:1129–1138 · PMID 32367221doi:10.1007/s00590-020-02680-9

  4. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature patients is effective: A systematic review

    Migliorini F., Cocconi F., Schafer L., Memminger M.K., Giorgino R., Maffulli N.

    2024Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 32:418–431 · PMID 38258963doi:10.1002/ksa.12048

  5. Bone-patellar tendon-bone, hamstring, and quadriceps tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature patients: A systematic review

    Migliorini F., Cocconi F., Schafer L., Vaishya R., Kammer D., Maffulli N.

    2024Br. Med. Bull. 152:16–27 · PMID 39333015doi:10.1093/bmb/ldae011

  6. Efficacy and safety of quadriceps tendon autograft versus bone-patellar tendon-bone and hamstring tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Zhang X.F., Liu P., Huang J.W., He Y.H.

    2024J. Orthop. Traumatol. 25:65 · PMID 39694948doi:10.1186/s10195-024-00801-2

  7. 20 years of pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in New York State

    Dodwell E.R., Lamont L.E., Green D.W., Pan T.J., Marx R.G., Lyman S.

    2014Am. J. Sports Med. 42:675–680 · PMID 24477820doi:10.1177/0363546513518412

  8. Ball heading and subclinical concussion in soccer as a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament injury

    Kakavas G., Malliaropoulos N., Blach W., Bikos G., Migliorini F., Maffulli N.

    2021J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 16:566 · PMID 34538251doi:10.1186/s13018-021-02711-z

  9. Delaying anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for more than 3 or 6 months results in lower risk of revision surgery

    Jensen H.A., Nielsen T.G., Lind M.

    2024J. Orthop. Traumatol. 25:19 · PMID 38637340doi:10.1186/s10195-024-00759-1

  10. All-epiphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yields superior sports performances than the trans-epiphyseal technique in skeletally immature patients: A systematic review

    Migliorini F., Pilone M., Memminger M.K., Eschweiler J., Giorgino R., Maffulli N.

    2024J. Orthop. Traumatol. 25:7 · PMID 38376718doi:10.1186/s10195-024-00751-9

  11. Reduced knee laxity and failure rate following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared with repair for acute tears: A meta-analysis

    Migliorini F., Vecchio G., Eschweiler J., Schneider S.M., Hildebrand F., Maffulli N.

    2023J. Orthop. Traumatol. 24:8 · PMID 36805839doi:10.1186/s10195-023-00688-5

  12. Known-group validity of passive knee joint position sense: A comparison between individuals with unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and healthy controls

    Jebreen M., Maffulli N., Migliorini F., Arumugam A.

    2023J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 18:525 · PMID 37481595doi:10.1186/s13018-023-03996-y

  13. Knee osteoarthritis, joint laxity and PROMs following conservative management versus surgical reconstruction for ACL rupture: A meta-analysis

    Migliorini F., Oliva F., Eschweiler J., Torsiello E., Hildebrand F., Maffulli N.

    2023Br. Med. Bull. 145:72–87 · PMID 36412118doi:10.1093/bmb/ldac029

  14. Significant race and gender differences in anterior cruciate ligament tibial footprint location: A 3D-based analysis

    Zhang L., Li C., Zhang J., Zou D., Dimitriou D., Xing X., Tsai T.Y., Li P.

    2023J. Orthop. Traumatol. 24:33 · PMID 37389687doi:10.1186/s10195-023-00710-w

  15. The evolution of ACL reconstruction over the last fifty years

    Chambat P., Guier C., Sonnery-Cottet B., Fayard J.M., Thaunat M.

    2013Int. Orthop. 37:181–186 · PMID 23322063doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1759-3

  16. Poor Functional Outcome in Patients with Voluntary Knee Instability after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

    Sood M., Kulshrestha V., Sachdeva J., Ghai A., Sud A., Singh S.

    2020Clin. Orthop. Surg. 12:312–317 · PMID 32903976doi:10.4055/cios19143

  17. Excessive tibial rotation during high-demand activities is not restored by anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

    Ristanis S., Stergiou N., Patras K., Vasiliadis H.S., Giakas G., Georgoulis A.D.

    2005Arthroscopy 21:1323–1329 · PMID 16325082doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2005.08.032

  18. Anatomic single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction flowchart

    van Eck C.F., Lesniak B.P., Schreiber V.M., Fu F.H.

    2010Arthroscopy 26:258–268 · PMID 20141990doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.07.027

  19. Single-bundle versus double-bundle arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: What does the available evidence suggest?

    Calvisi V., Lupparelli S., Rinonapoli G., Padua R.

    2007J. Orthop. Traumatol. 8:95–100 · PMID 27519895doi:10.1007/s10195-007-0171-z

  20. Bone-patellar tendon-bone versus two- and four-strand hamstring tendon autografts for ACL reconstruction in young adults: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

    Migliorini F., Torsiello E., Trivellas A., Eschweiler J., Hildebrand F., Maffulli N.

    2023Sci. Rep. 13:6883 · PMID 37106008doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33899-1

  21. Italian research on anterior cruciate ligament: A bibliometric analysis

    D’Ambrosi R., Migliorini F., Di Maria F., Anghilieri F.M., Di Feo F., Ursino N., Mangiavini L., Kambhampati S.B.S.

    2024Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 34:2235–2243 · PMID 38602582doi:10.1007/s00590-024-03937-3

  22. Editorial Commentary: Lateral Extra-articular Procedures Concomitant to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Must Balance Clinical Efficacy and the Risk of Kinematic Restraint

    Delaloye J.R., Saithna A.

    2022Arthroscopy 38:3172–3174 · PMID 36462782doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2022.08.017

  23. Combining Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures in Skeletally Immature Patients Is Safe and Associated With a Low Failure Rate

    Foissey C., Thaunat M., Caron E., Haidar I., Vieira T.D., Gomes L., Freychet B., Sonnery-Cottet B., Fayard J.M.

    2022Arthrosc. Sports Med. Rehabil. 4:e1941–e1951 · PMID 36579042doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2022.08.002

  24. Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Lateral Extra-Articular Reconstruction

    Geeslin A.G., Chahla J., LaPrade R.F.

    2022Arthroscopy 38:2600–2601 · PMID 36064274doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2022.07.001

  25. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young patients: Clinical results and return to sport

    Guarino A., Farinelli L., Iacono V., Screpis D., Piovan G., Rizzo M., Mariconda M., Zorzi C.

    2022Orthop. Rev. 14:33696 · PMID 35774923doi:10.52965/001c.33696

  26. Performance of 5-Strand Hamstring Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the STABILITY Study: A Subgroup Analysis

    Lodhia P., Nazari G., Bryant D., Getgood A., McCormack R., Group S., Getgood A.M.J., Bryant D.M., Litchfield R., Willits K., et al.

    2022Am. J. Sports Med. 50:3502–3509 · PMID 36260487doi:10.1177/03635465221128581

  27. Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Better Restores Knee Stability and Reduces Failure Rates Than Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients

    Perelli S., Costa G.G., Terron V.M., Formagnana M., Bait C., Espregueira-Mendes J., Monllau J.C.

    2022Am. J. Sports Med. 50:3778–3785 · PMID 36345894doi:10.1177/03635465221128926

  28. Combined anterior cruciate and lateral collateral ligaments reconstruction with ipsilateral hamstring autograft: Surgical technique

    Piedade S.R., Gorios C., Migliorini F., Maffulli N.

    2022J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 17:466 · PMID 36303194doi:10.1186/s13018-022-03358-0

  29. Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Reduces Failure of Hamstring Tendon Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: 2-Year Outcomes From the STABILITY Study Randomized Clinical Trial

    Getgood A.M.J., Bryant D.M., Litchfield R., Heard M., McCormack R.G., Rezansoff A., Peterson D., Bardana D., MacDonald P.B., Verdonk P.C.M., et al.

    2020Am. J. Sports Med. 48:285–297 · PMID 31940222doi:10.1177/0363546519896333

  30. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Plus Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Has a Similar Return-to-Sport Rate to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Alone but a Lower Failure Rate

    Rezansoff A., Firth A.D., Bryant D.M., Litchfield R., McCormack R.G., Heard M., MacDonald P.B., Spalding T., Verdonk P.C.M., Peterson D., et al.

    2024Arthroscopy 40:384–396.e1 · PMID 37270112doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2023.05.019

  31. Comparison of clinical outcomes between isolated ACL reconstruction and combined ACL with anterolateral ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Rhatomy S., Ariyanto M.W., Fiolin J., Dilogo I.H.

    2023Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 33:685–694 · PMID 35044518doi:10.1007/s00590-021-03194-8

  32. Good mid-term outcomes and low rates of residual rotatory laxity, complications and failures after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL) and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET)

    Grassi A., Zicaro J.P., Costa-Paz M., Samuelsson K., Wilson A., Zaffagnini S., Condello V.

    2020Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 28:418–431 · PMID 31324964doi:10.1007/s00167-019-05625-w

  33. Clinical Outcomes of Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Combined With Primary ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

    Na B.R., Kwak W.K., Seo H.Y., Seon J.K.

    2021Orthop. J. Sports Med. 9:23259671211023099 · PMID 34541008doi:10.1177/23259671211023099

  34. Obesity-associated outcomes after ACL reconstruction: A propensity-score-matched analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2005-2018

    Fang Z., Liu W.

    2024J. Orthop. Traumatol. 25:36 · PMID 39048813doi:10.1186/s10195-024-00779-x

  35. Functional leg performance 2 years after ACL surgery: A comparison between InternalBrace-augmented repair versus reconstruction versus healthy controls

    Buhl L., Muller S., Nuesch C., Pagenstert G., Mundermann A., Egloff C.

    2023J. Orthop. Traumatol. 24:52 · PMID 37735271doi:10.1186/s10195-023-00723-5

  36. The anterolateral ligament of the knee joint: A review of the anatomy, biomechanics, and anterolateral ligament surgery

    Ahn J.H., Patel N.A., Lin C.C., Lee T.Q.

    2019Knee Surg. Relat. Res. 31:12 · PMID 32660576doi:10.1186/s43019-019-0012-4

  37. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized study of three surgical methods

    Anderson A.F., Snyder R.B., Lipscomb A.B.

    2001Am. J. Sports Med. 29:272–279 · PMID 11394593doi:10.1177/03635465010290030201

  38. Modified Iliotibial Band Tenodesis Is Indicated to Correct Intraoperative Residual Pivot Shift After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using an Autologous Hamstring Tendon Graft: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

    Porter M., Shadbolt B.

    2020Am. J. Sports Med. 48:1069–1077 · PMID 32182127doi:10.1177/0363546520910148

  39. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis: 19-Year Clinical and Radiological Follow-up

    Castoldi M., Magnussen R.A., Gunst S., Batailler C., Neyret P., Lustig S., Servien E.

    2020Am. J. Sports Med. 48:1665–1672 · PMID 32368935doi:10.1177/0363546520914936

  40. The Addition of Either an Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or an Iliotibial Band Tenodesis Is Associated With a Lower Failure Rate After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparative Trial

    Helito C.P., Sobrado M.F., Moreira da Silva A.G., Castro de Padua V.B., Guimaraes T.M., Bonadio M.B., Pecora J.R., Gobbi R.G., Camanho G.L.

    2023Arthroscopy 39:308–319 · PMID 35840071doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2022.06.039

  41. Combined lateral extra-articular tenodesis and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Risk of osteoarthritis

    Declercq J., Schuurmans M., Tack L., Verhelst C., Truijen J.

    2023Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 33:1075–1082 · PMID 35362778doi:10.1007/s00590-022-03249-4

  42. 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

    Mahmoud A., Torbey S., Honeywill C., Myers P.

    2022Arthroscopy 38:119–124 · PMID 34090996doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2021.04.068

  43. Supplementary Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis for Residual Anterolateral Rotatory Instability in Patients Undergoing Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

    Mao Y., Zhang K., Li J., Fu W.

    2021Orthop. J. Sports Med. 9:23259671211002282 · PMID 33997075doi:10.1177/23259671211002282

  44. Combined Anterolateral and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Improves Pivot Shift Compared With Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

    Kunze K.N., Manzi J., Richardson M., White A.E., Coladonato C., DePhillipo N.N., LaPrade R.F., Chahla J.

    2021Arthroscopy 37:2677–2703 · PMID 33864833doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2021.03.058

  45. Long-term Graft Rupture Rates After Combined ACL and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Versus Isolated ACL Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group

    Sonnery-Cottet B., Haidar I., Rayes J., Fradin T., Ngbilo C., Vieira T.D., Freychet B., Ouanezar H., Saithna A.

    2021Am. J. Sports Med. 49:2889–2897 · PMID 34351825doi:10.1177/03635465211028990

  46. Transepicondylar distance measured on MRI can predict the length of the graft required for different anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques useful for revision surgery

    Rosso F., Rossi R., Faletti R., Cantivalli A., Blonna D., Bonasia D.E.

    2022J. Orthop. Traumatol. 23:50 · PMID 36242704doi:10.1186/s10195-022-00670-7

  47. Anterolateral Ligament Expert Group consensus paper on the management of internal rotation and instability of the anterior cruciate ligament—Deficient knee

    Sonnery-Cottet B., Daggett M., Fayard J.M., Ferretti A., Helito C.P., Lind M., Monaco E., de Padua V.B.C., Thaunat M., Wilson A., et al.

    2017J. Orthop. Traumatol. 18:91–106 · PMID 28220268doi:10.1007/s10195-017-0449-8

  48. Clinical and mechanical outcomes in isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction vs additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstruction

    Agarwal N., Monketh J., Volpin A.

    2022World J. Orthop. 13:662–675 · PMID 36051377doi:10.5312/wjo.v13.i7.662

  49. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Surgery Associated to Lateral Collateral and Anterolateral Ligaments Reconstruction With Single Achilles Tendon Allograft and Single Femoral Tunnel

    Espejo-Reina A., Espejo-Reina M.J., Lombardo-Torre M., Sevillano-Perez E., Llanos-Rodriguez A., Espejo-Baena A.

    2022Arthrosc. Tech. 11:e1769–e1777 · PMID 36311320doi:10.1016/j.eats.2022.06.013

  50. Personal and narrative review of the current management of the injured anterior cruciate ligament of the knee in the UK with reference to surgical treatment versus rehabilitation

    Mowbray M.A.S., Ireland J.

    2022BMJ Open Sport. Exerc. Med. 8:e001410 · PMID 36157129doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2022-001410

  51. The Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee: An Updated Systematic Review of Anatomy, Biomechanics, and Clinical Outcomes

    Littlefield C.P., Belk J.W., Houck D.A., Kraeutler M.J., LaPrade R.F., Chahla J., McCarty E.C.

    2021Arthroscopy 37:1654–1666 · PMID 33340678doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2020.12.190

  52. Anterolateral Structure Reconstructions With Different Tibial Attachment Sites Similarly Improve Tibiofemoral Kinematics and Result in Different Graft Force in Treating Knee Anterolateral Instability

    Xu J., Ye Z., Han K., Xu C., Zhao J., Dong S.

    2022Arthroscopy 38:2684–2696 · PMID 35337957doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2022.03.012

  53. Biomechanical Effects of Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Kelly S.R., Cutter B.M., Huish E.G.

    2021Orthop. J. Sports Med. 9:23259671211009879 · PMID 34250171doi:10.1177/23259671211009879

  54. The anterolateral ligament of the knee: Unwrapping the enigma. Anatomical study and comparison to previous reports

    Kosy J.D., Soni A., Venkatesh R., Mandalia V.I.

    2016J. Orthop. Traumatol. 17:303–308 · PMID 26861760doi:10.1007/s10195-016-0392-0

  55. Biomechanical analysis of simulated clinical testing and reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament of the knee

    Spencer L., Burkhart T.A., Tran M.N., Rezansoff A.J., Deo S., Caterine S., Getgood A.M.

    2015Am. J. Sports Med. 43:2189–2197 · PMID 26093007doi:10.1177/0363546515589166

  56. Anterolateral Knee Extra-articular Stabilizers: A Robotic Sectioning Study of the Anterolateral Ligament and Distal Iliotibial Band Kaplan Fibers

    Geeslin A.G., Chahla J., Moatshe G., Muckenhirn K.J., Kruckeberg B.M., Brady A.W., Coggins A., Dornan G.J., Getgood A.M., Godin J.A., et al.

    2018Am. J. Sports Med. 46:1352–1361 · PMID 29558208doi:10.1177/0363546518759053

  57. Clinical outcome measures in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Clinician vs patient completed knee scores

    Al-Dadah O., Shepstone L., Donell S.T.

    2021Surgeon 19:e353–e360 · PMID 33109443doi:10.1016/j.surge.2020.08.019

  58. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later

    Briggs K.K., Lysholm J., Tegner Y., Rodkey W.G., Kocher M.S., Steadman J.R.

    2009Am. J. Sports Med. 37:890–897 · PMID 19261899doi:10.1177/0363546508330143

  59. The 2011 Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

    Howick J., Chalmers I., Glasziou P., Greenhalgh T., Heneghan C., Liberati A., Moschetti I., Phillips B., Thornton H., Goddard O., et al.

    2011

  60. Return to play following ACL reconstruction: Survey among experienced arthroscopic surgeons (AGA instructors)

    Petersen W., Zantop T.

    2013Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 133:969–977 · PMID 23604790doi:10.1007/s00402-013-1746-1

  61. Return to sport after ACL reconstruction: How, when and why? A narrative review of current evidence

    Zaffagnini S., Grassi A., Serra M., Marcacci M.

    2015Joints 3:25–30 · PMID 26151036doi:10.11138/jts/2015.3.1.025

  62. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

    Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E.A., Brennan S.E., et al.

    2021BMJ 372:n71 · PMID 33782057doi:10.1136/bmj.n71

  63. The measurement properties of the IKDC-subjective knee form

    Grevnerts H.T., Terwee C.B., Kvist J.

    2015Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 23:3698–3706 · PMID 25193574doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3283-z

  64. Application of Machine Learning Algorithms to Predict Clinically Meaningful Improvement After Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

    Kunze K.N., Polce E.M., Ranawat A.S., Randsborg P.H., Williams R.J., Allen A.A., Nwachukwu B.U., Group H.A.R., Pearle A., Stein B.S., et al.

    2021Orthop. J. Sports Med. 9:23259671211046575 · PMID 34671691doi:10.1177/23259671211046575

  65. Preoperative Short Form Health Survey Score Is Predictive of Return to Play and Minimal Clinically Important Difference at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

    Nwachukwu B.U., Chang B., Voleti P.B., Berkanish P., Cohn M.R., Altchek D.W., Allen A.A., Williams R.J.R.

    2017Am. J. Sports Med. 45:2784–2790 · PMID 28727937doi:10.1177/0363546517714472

  66. Predicting the Objective and Subjective Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Machine Learning Analysis of 432 Patients

    Ye Z., Zhang T., Wu C., Qiao Y., Su W., Chen J., Xie G., Dong S., Xu J., Zhao J.

    2022Am. J. Sports Med. 50:3786–3795 · PMID 36285651doi:10.1177/03635465221129870

  67. Responsiveness of a Persian version of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Tegner activity scale in athletes with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction following physiotherapy treatment

    Mostafaee N., Negahban H., Shaterzadeh Yazdi M.J., Goharpey S., Mehravar M., Pirayeh N.

    2020Physiother. Theory Pract. 36:1019–1026 · PMID 30468412doi:10.1080/09593985.2018.1548672

  68. Review article: Validity of the KT-1000 knee ligament arthrometer

    Arneja S., Leith J.

    2009J. Orthop. Surg. 17:77–79 · PMID 19398799doi:10.1177/230949900901700117

  69. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

    Sterne J.A.C., Savovic J., Page M.J., Elbers R.G., Blencowe N.S., Boutron I., Cates C.J., Cheng H.Y., Corbett M.S., Eldridge S.M., et al.

    2019BMJ 366:l4898 · PMID 31462531doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898

  70. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial

    Higgins J.P.T., Savović J., Page M.J., Elbers R.G., Sterne J.A.C.

    2022Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (Updated February 2022)

  71. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

    Higgins J.P., Altman D.G., Gøtzsche P.C., Jüni P., Moher D., Oxman A.D., Savović J., Schulz K.F., Weeks L., Sterne J.A.

    2011BMJ 343:d5928 · PMID 22008217doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928

  72. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

    Sterne J.A., Hernan M.A., Reeves B.C., Savovic J., Berkman N.D., Viswanathan M., Henry D., Altman D.G., Ansari M.T., Boutron I., et al.

    2016BMJ 355:i4919 · PMID 27733354doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919

  73. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments

    McGuinness L.A., Higgins J.P.T.

    2020Res. Synth. Methods 12:55–61 · PMID 32336025doi:10.1002/jrsm.1411

  74. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (Updated February 2022)

    Authors not recorded

    2022

  75. Does combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction improve return to sport?

    Gonnachon A., Labattut L., Abdoul Carime N., Orta C., Baulot E., Martz P.

    2024Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 34:981–987 · PMID 37803219doi:10.1007/s00590-023-03744-2

  76. Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Does Not Delay Functional Recovery, Rehabilitation, and Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI (Scientific ACL Network International) Study Group

    Coquard M., Carrozzo A., Saithna A., Vigne G., Le Guen M., Fournier Y., Hager J.P., Vieira T.D., Sonnery-Cottet B.

    2022Arthrosc. Sports Med. Rehabil. 4:e9–e16 · PMID 35141532doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2021.09.026

  77. A comparison of the outcomes of anterior curciate ligament reconstruction with large-size graft versus reconstruction with average-size graft combined with extraarticular tenodesis

    El-Azab H., Moursy M., Mohamed M.A., Elsayed M.

    2023Injury 54:976–982 · PMID 36720663doi:10.1016/j.injury.2023.01.033

  78. A medium to long-term follow-up of ACL reconstruction using double gracilis and semitendinosus grafts

    Ferretti A., Monaco E., Giannetti S., Caperna L., Luzon D., Conteduca F.

    2011Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 19:473–478 · PMID 20602086doi:10.1007/s00167-010-1206-1

  79. ACL Reconstruction Combined With the Arnold-Coker Modification of the MacIntosh Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis: Long-term Clinical and Radiological Outcomes

    Viglietta E., Ponzo A., Monaco E., Iorio R., Drogo P., Andreozzi V., Conteduca F., Ferretti A.

    2022Am. J. Sports Med. 50:404–414 · PMID 34939890doi:10.1177/03635465211062609

  80. Extra-articular tenodesis combined with an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in acute anterior cruciate ligament tear in elite female football players

    Guzzini M., Mazza D., Fabbri M., Lanzetti R., Redler A., Iorio C., Monaco E., Ferretti A.

    2016Int. Orthop. 40:2091–2096 · PMID 27511467doi:10.1007/s00264-016-3261-9

  81. No increase in adverse events with lateral extra-articular tenodesis augmentation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction—Results from the stability randomized trial

    Heard M., Marmura H., Bryant D., Litchfield R., McCormack R., MacDonald P., Spalding T., Verdonk P., Peterson D., Bardana D., et al.

    2023J. Isakos 8:246–254 · PMID 36646169doi:10.1016/j.jisako.2022.12.001

  82. Surgical Timing Does Not Interfere on Clinical Outcomes in Combined Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament: A Comparative Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

    Helito C.P., Sobrado M.F., Giglio P.N., Bonadio M.B., Pécora J.R., Gobbi R.G., Camanho G.L.

    2021Arthroscopy 37:1909–1917 · PMID 33539981doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2021.01.045

  83. Anatomic Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament of the Knee With or Without Reconstruction of the Anterolateral Ligament: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Ibrahim S.A., Shohdy E.M., Marwan Y., Ramadan S.A., Almisfer A.K., Mohammad M.W., Abdulsattar W.S., Khirat S.

    2017Am. J. Sports Med. 45:1558–1566 · PMID 28293966doi:10.1177/0363546517691517

  84. Adding a modified Lemaire procedure to ACLR in knees with severe rotational knee instability does not compromise isokinetic muscle recovery at the time of return-to-play

    Joseph L., Demey G., Chamu T., Schmidt A., Germain A., van Rooij F., Saffarini M., Dejour D.

    2020J. Exp. Orthop. 7:84 · PMID 33128116doi:10.1186/s40634-020-00302-1

  85. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction reduces the rate of reoperation for graft failure or secondary meniscal lesions in young athletes

    Laboudie P., Douiri A., Bouguennec N., Biset A., Graveleau N.

    2022Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 30:3488–3498 · PMID 35364738doi:10.1007/s00167-022-06956-x

  86. Comparison of ACL and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction With Isolated ACL Reconstruction Using Hamstring Autograft: Outcomes in Young Female Patients With High-Grade Pivot Shift

    Lee D.W., Lee D.H., Cho S.I., Yang S.J., Kim W.J., Lee J.K., Kim J.G.

    2023Orthop. J. Sports Med. 11:23259671231178048 · PMID 37781636doi:10.1177/23259671231178048

  87. Addition of anterolateral ligament reconstruction to primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could benefit recovery of functional outcomes

    Lee J.H., Lee G.B., Chung W., Han S.B., Jang K.M.

    2024Sci. Rep. 14:11440 · PMID 38769088doi:10.1038/s41598-024-62444-x

  88. Restoring rotational stability following anterior cruciate ligament surgery: Single-bundle reconstruction combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis versus double-bundle reconstruction

    Legnani C., Borgo E., Macchi V., Ventura A.

    2022J. Comp. Eff. Res. 11:729–736 · PMID 35642491doi:10.2217/cer-2021-0248

  89. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction associated with extra-articular tenodesis: A prospective clinical and radiographic evaluation with 10- to 13-year follow-up

    Marcacci M., Zaffagnini S., Giordano G., Iacono F., Presti M.L.

    2009Am. J. Sports Med. 37:707–714 · PMID 19193599doi:10.1177/0363546508328114

  90. ACL reconstruction with lateral extra-articular tenodesis using a continuous graft: 10-year outcomes of 50 cases

    Meynard P., Pelet H., Angelliaume A., Legallois Y., Lavignac P., De Bartolo R., Fabre T., Costes S.

    2020Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 106:929–935 · PMID 32534897doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2020.04.007

  91. Isolated ACL Reconstruction Versus ACL Reconstruction Combined With Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis: A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes in Adolescent Patients

    Monaco E., Carrozzo A., Saithna A., Conteduca F., Annibaldi A., Marzilli F., Minucci M., Sonnery-Cottet B., Ferretti A.

    2022Am. J. Sports Med. 50:3244–3255 · PMID 36113005doi:10.1177/03635465221118377

  92. Clinical Outcomes After Combined ACL and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Versus Isolated ACL Reconstruction With Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafts: A Matched-Pair Analysis of 2018 Patients From the SANTI Study Group

    Pioger C., Gousopoulos L., Hopper G.P., Vieira T.D., Campos J.P., El Helou A., Philippe C., Saithna A., Sonnery-Cottet B.

    2022Am. J. Sports Med. 50:3493–3501 · PMID 36255278doi:10.1177/03635465221128261

  93. Modified iliotibial band tenodesis versus lateral extracapsular tenodesis, to augment anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A 2-year randomized controlled trial

    Porter M., Shadbolt B.

    2022ANZ J. Surg. 92:2247–2253 · PMID 35621282doi:10.1111/ans.17795

  94. Lateral tenodesis combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a unique semitendinosus and gracilis transplant

    Saragaglia D., Pison A., Refaie R.

    2013Int. Orthop. 37:1575–1581 · PMID 23824520doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1957-7

  95. Outcome of a Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Technique With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

    Sonnery-Cottet B., Thaunat M., Freychet B., Pupim B.H., Murphy C.G., Claes S.

    2015Am. J. Sports Med. 43:1598–1605 · PMID 25740835doi:10.1177/0363546515571571

  96. 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

    Sonnery-Cottet B., Saithna A., Cavalier M., Kajetanek C., Temponi E.F., Daggett M., Helito C.P., Thaunat M.

    2017Am. J. Sports Med. 45:1547–1557 · PMID 28151693doi:10.1177/0363546516686057

  97. Reoperation Rates After Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Series of 548 Patients From the SANTI Study Group With a Minimum Follow-up of 2 Years

    Thaunat M., Clowez G., Saithna A., Cavalier M., Choudja E., Vieira T.D., Fayard J.M., Sonnery-Cottet B.

    2017Am. J. Sports Med. 45:2569–2577 · PMID 28610433doi:10.1177/0363546517708982

  98. An extra-articular procedure improves the clinical outcome in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings in female athletes

    Vadalà A.P., Iorio R., De Carli A., Bonifazi A., Iorio C., Gatti A., Rossi C., Ferretti A.

    2013Int. Orthop. 37:187–192 · PMID 22623063doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1571-0

  99. Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Decreases Passive Anterior Tibial Subluxation Compared with Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Despite Similar Rotational Stability and Clinical Outcomes

    Yang H.Y., Cheon J.H., Choi J.H., Song E.K., Seon J.K.

    2023Arthroscopy 39:2513–2524.e2 · PMID 37142134doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2023.04.010

  100. Prospective and randomized evaluation of ACL reconstruction with three techniques: A clinical and radiographic evaluation at 5 years follow-up

    Zaffagnini S., Marcacci M., Lo Presti M., Giordano G., Iacono F., Neri M.P.

    2006Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 14:1060–1069 · PMID 16909301doi:10.1007/s00167-006-0130-x

  101. ST/G ACL reconstruction: Double strand plus extra-articular sling vs double bundle, randomized study at 3-year follow-up

    Zaffagnini S., Bruni D., Russo A., Takazawa Y., Lo Presti M., Giordano G., Marcacci M.

    2008Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 18:573–581 · PMID 18208432doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2007.00697.x

  102. Editorial Commentary: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair Has Limited Indications and Outcomes Inferior to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

    Miller M., Feldman M.D.

    2024Arthroscopy · PMID 39276951doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.012

  103. Anatomic femoral tunnel and satisfactory clinical outcomes achieved with the modified transtibial technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Zhang L., Xu J., Luo Y., Guo L., Wang S.

    2024Heliyon 10:e35824 · PMID 39224330doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35824

  104. Effect of Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures Combined With ACL Reconstruction on the Rate of Graft Rupture in Patients Aged Older Than 30 Years: A Matched-Pair Analysis of 1102 Patients From the SANTI Study Group

    Pettinari F., Carrozzo A., Saithna A., Ali A.A., Alayane A., Barosso M., Vieira T.D., Sonnery-Cottet B.

    2024Am. J. Sports Med. 52:1765–1772 · PMID 38794893doi:10.1177/03635465241247760

  105. Impact of Lateral Extra-Articular Procedure Augmentation on Rerupture Risk and Tegner Activity Scale Outcomes in Adolescent Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Matched Comparative Study With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

    Moussa M.K., Lefèvre N., Valentin E., Coughlan A., Zgolli A., Gerometta A., Meyer A., Hardy A.

    2024Am. J. Sports Med. 52:892–901 · PMID 38333967doi:10.1177/03635465231223703

  106. Clinical Results of Combined ACL and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Narrative Review from the SANTI Study Group

    Saithna A., Daggett M., Helito C.P., Monaco E., Franck F., Vieira T.D., Pioger C., Kim J.G., Sonnery-Cottet B.

    2021J. Knee Surg. 34:962–970 · PMID 32023631doi:10.1055/s-0040-1701220

  107. Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Extra-Articular Tenodesis: Why and When?

    Mathew M., Dhollander A., Getgood A.

    2018Clin. Sports Med. 37:75–86 · PMID 29173559doi:10.1016/j.csm.2017.07.011

  108. Isokinetic Strength After ACL Reconstruction: Influence of Concomitant Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction

    Gillet B., Blache Y., Rogowski I., Vigne G., Capel O., Sonnery-Cottet B., Fayard J.M., Thaunat M.

    2022Sports Health 14:176–182 · PMID 33794712doi:10.1177/19417381211005405

  109. The anterolateral complex of the knee: Results from the International ALC Consensus Group Meeting

    Getgood A., Brown C., Lording T., Amis A., Claes S., Geeslin A., Musahl V.

    2019Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 27:166–176 · PMID 30046994doi:10.1007/s00167-018-5072-6

  110. Predictors of Graft Failure in Young Active Patients Undergoing Hamstring Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With or Without a Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis: The Stability Experience

    Firth A.D., Bryant D.M., Litchfield R., McCormack R.G., Heard M., MacDonald P.B., Spalding T., Verdonk P.C.M., Peterson D., Bardana D., et al.

    2022Am. J. Sports Med. 50:384–395 · PMID 35050817doi:10.1177/03635465211061150

  111. Evaluation of Failed ACL Reconstruction: An Updated Review

    Kemler B., Coladonato C., Sonnier J.H., Campbell M.P., Darius D., Erickson B.J., Tjoumakaris F.P., Freedman K.B.

    2024Open Access J. Sports Med. 15:29–39 · PMID 38586217doi:10.2147/OAJSM.S427332

  112. The Role of Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Clinical Studies

    Boksh K., Sheikh N., Chong H.H., Ghosh A., Aujla R.

    2024Am. J. Sports Med. 52:269–285 · PMID 36960926doi:10.1177/03635465231157377

  113. Comparative clinical outcomes of anterolateral ligament reconstruction versus lateral extra-articular tenodesis in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis

    Ra H.J., Kim J.H., Lee D.H.

    2020Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 140:923–931 · PMID 32140829doi:10.1007/s00402-020-03393-8

  114. Positive pivot shift after ACL reconstruction predicts later osteoarthrosis: 63 patients followed 5-9 years after surgery

    Jonsson H., Riklund-Ahlstrom K., Lind J.

    2004Acta Orthop. Scand. 75:594–599 · PMID 15513493doi:10.1080/00016470410001484

  115. The diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for anterior cruciate ligament tears are comparable but the Lachman test has been previously overestimated: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Sokal P.A., Norris R., Maddox T.W., Oldershaw R.A.

    2022Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 30:3287–3303 · PMID 35150292doi:10.1007/s00167-022-06898-4

  116. Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis With the Iliotibial Band Strip Fixed on the Femoral Cortical Surface Reduces Laxity and Causes Less Overconstraint in the Anterolateral Lesioned Knee: A Biomechanical Study

    Xu J., Qiao Y., Han K., Xu C., Dong S., Zhao J.

    2022Arthroscopy 38:3162–3171 · PMID 35777678doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2022.06.016

  117. Overconstraint Associated With a Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis Is Decreased by Using an Anterior Femoral Insertion Point in a Cadaveric Model

    Sigloch M., Coppola C., Hoermann R., Alt P., Schmoelz W., Mayr R.

    2024Arthroscopy · PMID 39173687doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2024.07.041

  118. Anterolateral Structure Reconstruction Similarly Improves the Stability and Causes Less Overconstraint in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knees Compared With Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis: A Biomechanical Study

    Xu J., Han K., Lee T.Q., Xu C., Su W., Chen J., Yu J., Dong S., Zhao J.

    2022Arthroscopy 38:911–924 · PMID 34358641doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2021.06.023

  119. Incidence and Risk Factors for Residual High-Grade Pivot Shift After ACL Reconstruction With or Without a Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis

    Jacquet C., Pioger C., Seil R., Khakha R., Parratte S., Steltzlen C., Argenson J.N., Pujol N., Ollivier M.

    2021Orthop. J. Sports Med. 9:23259671211003590 · PMID 33997078doi:10.1177/23259671211003590

  120. Imaging Findings of Complications After Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis of the Knee: A Current Concepts Review

    Marshall D.C., Silva F.D., Goldenberg B.T., Quintero D., Baraga M.G., Jose J.

    2022Orthop. J. Sports Med. 10:23259671221114820 · PMID 36062159doi:10.1177/23259671221114820

  121. Lateral Augmentation Procedures in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Anatomic, Biomechanical, Imaging, and Clinical Evidence

    Weber A.E., Zuke W., Mayer E.N., Forsythe B., Getgood A., Verma N.N., Bach B.R., Bedi A., Cole B.J.

    2019Am. J. Sports Med. 47:740–752 · PMID 29401410doi:10.1177/0363546517751140

  122. Risk factors for postoperative surgical site infections after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Zhao D., Liang G.H., Pan J.K., Zeng L.F., Luo M.H., Huang H.T., Han Y.H., Lin F.Z., Xu N.J., Yang W.Y., et al.

    2023Br. J. Sports Med. 57:118–128 · PMID 36517215doi:10.1136/bjsports-2022-105448

  123. ACL reconstruction and extra-articular tenodesis

    Duthon V.B., Magnussen R.A., Servien E., Neyret P.

    2013Clin. Sports Med. 32:141–153 · PMID 23177468doi:10.1016/j.csm.2012.08.013

  124. Combined ACLR and lateral extra-articular tenodesis with a continuous iliotibial band autograft is a viable option in a population of athletes who participate in pivoting sports

    Lutz C., Casin C., Pioger C., Jacquot X., Jaeger J.H., Van Hille W.

    2024Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 33:96–106 · PMID 38922782doi:10.1002/ksa.12324

  125. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis may be more cost-effective than independent anterolateral ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and economic analysis

    Giusto J.D., Cohen D., Dadoo S., Grandberg C., Lott A., Hughes J.D., Ayeni O.R., Musahl V.

    2024J. ISAKOS 9:689–698 · PMID 38604570doi:10.1016/j.jisako.2024.04.004

  126. The Involvement of the Anterolateral Ligament in Rotational Control of the Knee

    Sonnery-Cottet B., Lutz C., Daggett M., Dalmay F., Freychet B., Niglis L., Imbert P.

    2016Am. J. Sports Med. 44:1209–1214 · PMID 26865395doi:10.1177/0363546515625282

  127. Tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament surgery

    Wilson T.C., Kantaras A., Atay A., Johnson D.L.

    2004Am. J. Sports Med. 32:543–549 · PMID 14977688doi:10.1177/0363546504263151

  128. Biomechanical comparison of anterolateral ligament anatomical reconstruction with a semi-anatomical lateral extra-articular tenodesis. A cadaveric study

    Jette C., Gutierrez D., Sastre S., Llusa M., Combalia A.

    2019Knee 26:1003–1009 · PMID 31427244doi:10.1016/j.knee.2019.07.005

Article record

The record

Status

Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Status
Version of record: Medicina 2025
Journal version
Medicina (2025) · doi:10.3390/medicina61020294
Confirmed
2025-02-08
Licence
CC BY 4.0

This reprint has no DOI of its own: cite the journal article.

The journal's version is the version of record. This page re-typesets it under the article's licence; where they differ, the journal's version is authoritative.

Version history

  1. Published in Medicina2025-02-08
  2. Living reprint on Literature Decoded2026-10-01
  3. Reprinted here2026-10-01
  4. This HTML2026-10-01

Cite this article

Citation
Migliorini F, Lucenti L, Mok YR, Bardazzi T, D’Ambrosi R, Carli AD, et al. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures: A Systematic Review. Medicina (Kaunas). 2025;61(2):294. doi:10.3390/medicina61020294
BibTeX
@article{Migliorini2025Anterior,
  title     = {Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures: A Systematic Review},
  author    = {Filippo Migliorini and Ludovico Lucenti and Ying Ren Mok and Tommaso Bardazzi and Riccardo D’Ambrosi and Angelo De Carli and Domenico Paolicelli and Nicola Maffulli},
  journal   = {Medicina},
  year      = {2025},
  volume    = {61},
  number    = {2},
  pages     = {294},
  doi       = {10.3390/medicina61020294},
  pmid      = {40005410},
  publisher = {Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)}
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures: A Systematic Review
AU  - Filippo Migliorini
AU  - Ludovico Lucenti
AU  - Ying Ren Mok
AU  - Tommaso Bardazzi
AU  - Riccardo D’Ambrosi
AU  - Angelo De Carli
AU  - Domenico Paolicelli
AU  - Nicola Maffulli
JO  - Medicina
PY  - 2025
VL  - 61
IS  - 2
SP  - 294
DO  - 10.3390/medicina61020294
PB  - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
SN  - 1010-660X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61020294
ER  -

Cite the original article (the version of record), not this reprint.

Take it with you

One self-contained HTML file: the text, data and figures, readable offline.

Disclaimer and limitations

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Licence and attribution

This page reproduces Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures: A Systematic Review by Filippo Migliorini, Ludovico Lucenti, Ying Ren Mok, Tommaso Bardazzi, Riccardo D’Ambrosi, Angelo De Carli, Domenico Paolicelli, Nicola Maffulli, first published in Medicina 2025;61(2):294, doi:10.3390/medicina61020294, PMID 40005410, PMC11857574. © 2025 by the authors. It is used under the CC BY 4.0 licence.

Changes made:

The words, data, figures and conclusions are the authors’. Literature Decoded is not the publisher of record and does not claim endorsement by the authors or the journal. The version of record is the journal’s; cite it.

Licence statement in the article: “Published by MDPI on behalf of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).”

Are you an author of this article? Claim it or ask us to take it down.

Cite this article

Living reprint · journal article