Background: The management of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries remains contentious. Clinical outcomes of surgical, conservative, and combined approaches have been described in a range of prospective and retrospective studies. The aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate these outcomes and assess the study methodologies. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of the following databases was performed: PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar. Studies were assessed using the Coleman Methodology Score. Results: 52 articles were included (3 randomised controlled trials, 8 prospective comparative studies, 17 retrospective comparative studies and 24 case series). Outcome measures were heterogeneous amongst articles. The most common outcomes assessed were AP laxity, Lysholm score and medial/valgus laxity. Complications at varying follow-up times with differing grades of MCL injury were reported in 25 (48%) studies. Evidence was conflicting, with no consensus from the available published literature regarding the best method of treatment for a combined ACL and MCL injury. Conclusions: Heterogeneous outcome measures and limited randomised controlled trials prevent advocacy of a single treatment option. Good outcomes have been reported from repair, reconstruction and conservative management of the MCL together with ACL reconstruction. Further prospective comparative data is required to evaluate MCL management choice and prognostic signs for successful nonsurgical MCL treatment.
Background: The management of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries remains contentious. Clinical outcomes of surgical, conservative, and combined approaches have been described in a range of prospective and retrospective studies. The aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate these outcomes and assess the study methodologies. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of the following databases was performed: PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar. Studies were assessed using the Coleman Methodology Score. Results: 52 articles were included (3 randomised controlled trials, 8 prospective comparative studies, 17 retrospective comparative studies and 24 case series). Outcome measures were heterogeneous amongst articles. The most common outcomes assessed were AP laxity, Lysholm score and medial/valgus laxity. Complications at varying follow-up times with differing grades of MCL injury were reported in 25 (48%) studies. Evidence was conflicting, with no consensus from the available published literature regarding the best method of treatment for a combined ACL and MCL injury. Conclusions: Heterogeneous outcome measures and limited randomised controlled trials prevent advocacy of a single treatment option. Good outcomes have been reported from repair, reconstruction and conservative management of the MCL together with ACL reconstruction. Further prospective comparative data is required to evaluate MCL management choice and prognostic signs for successful nonsurgical MCL treatment.