Do lateral extra-articular tenodeses play a role in the control of sagittal knee laxity in short hamstring tendon graft ACL reconstruction? A retrospective study of 80 cases with and without tenodesis - 29/07/23

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103656

Florie Frigout ^a,^b,⁎ , Thomas Pouderoux ^c, Caroline Vincelot-Chainard ^a,^b, Henri Robert ^b
^a Département de chirurgie osseuse, CHU d’Angers, 49100 Angers, France
^b Unité de chirurgie orthopédique ambulatoire, centre hospitalier du Haut-Anjou, 53200 Château-Gontier, France
^c Service de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique et de la main, centre hospitalier du Mans, 194, avenue Rubillard, 72037 Le Mans, France

^⁎Corresponding author at: Département de chirurgie osseuse, CHU d’Angers, 4, rue Larrey, 49100 Angers, France.Département de chirurgie osseuse, CHU d’Angers4, rue LarreyAngers49100France

Sous presse. Épreuves corrigées par l'auteur. Disponible en ligne depuis le Saturday 29 July 2023
Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder

Abstract

Introduction

Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) associated with an intra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) provides better rotational control, especially in knees with injuries to the anterolateral structures that are characterized by the presence of a gross pivot shift. However, the role of LET in the control of sagittal knee laxity remains debated. We hypothesized that LET plays a role in the control of sagittal knee laxity.

Patients and methods

This was a retrospective, single-center, single-surgeon study of 80 patients operated on between January 2014 and December 2016 for a complete primary ACL tear. We compared 43 patients who underwent an isolated short hamstring tendon graft ACLR with 37 patients who underwent an ACLR using intra- and extra-articular grafts. Knee laxity measurements were taken with a GNRB® arthrometer preoperatively, at 1, 3, 6, and 9months (M1–M9), 1year, and at the last follow-up. The side-to-side differences (healthy vs. operated knees) in graft laxity (ΔL in mm) and compliance (ΔC in μm/N) were calculated for each patient from the generated force-displacement curves.

Results

No differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of the ΔL and ΔC evolvement profiles. All laxity parameters decreased significantly between the preoperative assessment and M1. ΔL and ΔC increased at low forces between M1 and M9. ΔL and ΔC stabilized after M9.

Discussion

Sagittal control remains the primary function of the ACL. The anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction and LET do not improve sagittal postoperative laxity.

Conclusion

Sagittal laxity measurements recorded during the postoperative period did not show that adding LET to short hamstring tendon graft ACLRs improved either graft laxity or compliance.