Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft Combined With Modified Lemaire Technique Versus Hamstring Graft Combined With Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Clinical Comparative Matched Study With A...

Background: Additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has recently been correlated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced failure rates in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). However, no data are available on clinical outcomes and reoperation after revision ACLR using different LET procedures.

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of ACL + anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction using hamstring tendon graft (HT-ALL) and a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft + modified Lemaire tenodesis procedure (BPTB-Lemaire) in the setting of revision ACLR and to determine whether ALL reconstruction is associated with an increased rate of adverse outcomes when compared with a modified Lemaire tenodesis procedure.

Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: Descriptive data and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected from patients who underwent revision ACLR with LET between 2009 and 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients with an HT autograft combined with ALL reconstruction (HT-ALL group) were matched in a 1:1 propensity ratio to patients with a BPTB autograft combined with a modified Lemaire LET procedure (BPTB-Lemaire group). The evaluated parameters included complications and reoperations; knee laxity tests; return to sports; and various scores, including the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury scale, Marx activity rating scale, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.

Results: In total, 36 matched pairs were included in the analysis. The mean follow-up durations for the BPTB-Lemaire and HT-ALL groups were 56 ± 35 and 57 ± 23 months, respectively ( = .91). No significant differences were found in graft rupture rate (HT-ALL, 0%; BPTB-Lemaire, 11.1%; = .13) or reoperations (HT-ALL, 8.3%; BPTB-Lemaire, 22.2%; = .23). No specific complications with regard to LET were noted in either group. Additionally, there were no significant differences in knee laxity parameters, return to sports, or clinical scores between the groups at the final follow-up, except for the Tegner activity scale score (HT-ALL, 6.4; BPTB-Lemaire, 7.3; = .03). HT-ALL was associated with a shorter surgical time (41.4 vs 59.8 minutes; < .0001).

Conclusion: HT-ALL was at least equivalent, in terms of clinical outcomes, to the more commonly performed procedure, BPTB-Lemaire. Performing ALL reconstruction in the setting of revision ACLR is therefore safe and effective.