PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study is to systematically review and network meta-analyze the current evidence in the literature to ascertain if there is a superior lateral extra-articular augmentation technique in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACL.R) with respect to knee stability, re-rupture rates and functional outcomes. METHODS: The literature search was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing ACL.R to ACL.R + lateral extra-articular augmentation were included. Lateral extra-articular techniques included were anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALL.R), Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, Losee, Maraccaci, and McIntosh. Clinical outcomes were compared between ACL.R alone and the different lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques using a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis, with statistical analysis performed using R. The treatment options were ranked using the P-Score. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies with a total of 2990 patients were included. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold technique had the highest P-Score for ACL re-ruptures and residual pivot-shift. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, and ALL.R all significantly reduced the rate of ACL re-rupture, and residual pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. There was no significant difference between any of the lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques and ACL.R alone. ALL.R had the highest P-Score for return to play, and return to play at pre-injury level. CONCLUSION: This study established that ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire and ALL.R resulted in significantly lower ipsilateral ACL re-ruptures, as well as reduced pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. Whereas, the other lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques did not reduce pivot-shift and re-rupture. Additionally, functional outcomes and return to play were comparable between those who underwent ACL.R and lateral extra-articular augmentation and ACL.R alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study is to systematically review and network meta-analyze the current evidence in the literature to ascertain if there is a superior lateral extra-articular augmentation technique in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACL.R) with respect to knee stability, re-rupture rates and functional outcomes. METHODS: The literature search was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing ACL.R to ACL.R + lateral extra-articular augmentation were included. Lateral extra-articular techniques included were anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALL.R), Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, Losee, Maraccaci, and McIntosh. Clinical outcomes were compared between ACL.R alone and the different lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques using a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis, with statistical analysis performed using R. The treatment options were ranked using the P-Score. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies with a total of 2990 patients were included. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold technique had the highest P-Score for ACL re-ruptures and residual pivot-shift. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, and ALL.R all significantly reduced the rate of ACL re-rupture, and residual pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. There was no significant difference between any of the lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques and ACL.R alone. ALL.R had the highest P-Score for return to play, and return to play at pre-injury level. CONCLUSION: This study established that ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire and ALL.R resulted in significantly lower ipsilateral ACL re-ruptures, as well as reduced pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. Whereas, the other lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques did not reduce pivot-shift and re-rupture. Additionally, functional outcomes and return to play were comparable between those who underwent ACL.R and lateral extra-articular augmentation and ACL.R alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Diego Ariel de Lima; Camilo Partezani Helito; Lana Lacerda de Lima; Daniel de Castro Silva; Maria Luzete Costa Cavalcante; José Alberto Dias Leite Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Nicholas N DePhillipo; Mark E Cinque; Jorge Chahla; Andrew G Geeslin; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Jean-Romain Delaloye; Christoph Hartog; Samuel Blatter; Michel Schläppi; Dominic Müller; Dario Denzler; Jozef Murar; Peter Philipp Koch Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 4.772