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

anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction lateral extra-articular tenodesis meniscal tear pivot shift rotational laxity

Journal

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2021
Historique:
received: 07 11 2020
accepted: 04 12 2020
entrez: 17 5 2021
pubmed: 18 5 2021
medline: 18 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Residual rotatory knee laxity at midterm follow-up after isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus ACLR with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) remains an issue. To evaluate the outcomes of ACLR with or without additional LET at a minimum 2-year follow-up in patients with preoperative high-grade pivot shift (PS). Our hypothesis was that the addition of LET would decrease the risk of secondary meniscal injury and the presence of residual high-grade PS at follow-up. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. A retrospective analysis performed at 3 sports medicine centers identified 266 study patients; all had a high-grade PS (grade 2 or 3) preoperatively and underwent isolated ACLR with or without LET. Four different ACLR techniques were used: single-strand quadrupled semitendinosus (ST4) ACLR without LET (ST4 group; n = 55), ST4 with anatomic LET (ST4+LET group; n = 77), bone-patellar tendon and modified Lemaire LET (BTB+LET group; n = 43), and quadriceps tendon and modified Lemaire LET (QT+LET group; n = 91). At follow-up, we evaluated for the presence of high-grade (grade ≥2) PS. Preoperative meniscal tears and their treatment were recorded. Overall, 185 (69.5%) patients had at least 1 meniscal tear at index surgery. The mean follow-up period was 44.3 months; 47 (17.7%) patients had a new meniscal tear and 64 (24%) patients had a high-grade PS at follow-up. Compared with meniscal repair, significant predictors for high-grade PS at follow-up were meniscectomy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.65 [95% CI, 1.19-5.63]; In the current study, 1 in 4 patients with high-grade PS before ACLR with or without LET was at risk of residual rotatory knee laxity at mean 44-month follow-up, regardless of the technique used. Repairing a pre-existing meniscal lesion was more effective than performing LET to decrease the presence of a high-grade PS at follow-up.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Residual rotatory knee laxity at midterm follow-up after isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus ACLR with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) remains an issue.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the outcomes of ACLR with or without additional LET at a minimum 2-year follow-up in patients with preoperative high-grade pivot shift (PS). Our hypothesis was that the addition of LET would decrease the risk of secondary meniscal injury and the presence of residual high-grade PS at follow-up.
STUDY DESIGN METHODS
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS METHODS
A retrospective analysis performed at 3 sports medicine centers identified 266 study patients; all had a high-grade PS (grade 2 or 3) preoperatively and underwent isolated ACLR with or without LET. Four different ACLR techniques were used: single-strand quadrupled semitendinosus (ST4) ACLR without LET (ST4 group; n = 55), ST4 with anatomic LET (ST4+LET group; n = 77), bone-patellar tendon and modified Lemaire LET (BTB+LET group; n = 43), and quadriceps tendon and modified Lemaire LET (QT+LET group; n = 91). At follow-up, we evaluated for the presence of high-grade (grade ≥2) PS. Preoperative meniscal tears and their treatment were recorded.
RESULTS RESULTS
Overall, 185 (69.5%) patients had at least 1 meniscal tear at index surgery. The mean follow-up period was 44.3 months; 47 (17.7%) patients had a new meniscal tear and 64 (24%) patients had a high-grade PS at follow-up. Compared with meniscal repair, significant predictors for high-grade PS at follow-up were meniscectomy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.65 [95% CI, 1.19-5.63];
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
In the current study, 1 in 4 patients with high-grade PS before ACLR with or without LET was at risk of residual rotatory knee laxity at mean 44-month follow-up, regardless of the technique used. Repairing a pre-existing meniscal lesion was more effective than performing LET to decrease the presence of a high-grade PS at follow-up.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33997078
doi: 10.1177/23259671211003590
pii: 10.1177_23259671211003590
pmc: PMC8113945
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

23259671211003590

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2021.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: S.P. has received consulting fees from Zimmer Biomet. C.S. has received consulting fees from Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew. N.P. has received consulting fees from Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew. M.O. has received consulting fees from Arthrex, Stryker, and Newclip. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Références

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Apr;20(4):737-42
pubmed: 22222616
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Aug;28(8):2558-2566
pubmed: 32020251
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul;46(8):1819-1826
pubmed: 29741400
Orthop Clin North Am. 1985 Jan;16(1):143-57
pubmed: 3881714
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Dec;26(12):3724-3730
pubmed: 29947841
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Aug;28(8):2494-2501
pubmed: 31840191
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 May 16;100(10):882
pubmed: 29762286
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Nov;28(11):3504-3510
pubmed: 32328696
Knee. 2011 Mar;18(2):88-93
pubmed: 20650637
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Aug;473(8):2609-18
pubmed: 25845949
Clin Sports Med. 2018 Jan;37(1):75-86
pubmed: 29173559
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Apr;28(4):1023-1028
pubmed: 31250053
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Mar;64(3):352-9
pubmed: 7061552
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Sep;43(9):2189-97
pubmed: 26093007
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Jan;20(1):5-47
pubmed: 22105976
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Feb;46(2):348-356
pubmed: 29065271
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Mar;46(3):607-616
pubmed: 29268024
Clin Sports Med. 2018 Jan;37(1):21-31
pubmed: 29173554
Am J Sports Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;24(4):492-7
pubmed: 8827309
Orthopedics. 2010 Oct;33(10 Suppl):87-93
pubmed: 20954638
Arthroscopy. 2016 May;32(5):898-905
pubmed: 26524939
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2002 Sep;88(5):508-13
pubmed: 12399717
Am J Sports Med. 2020 Feb;48(2):281-284
pubmed: 32003642
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jun;45(7):1547-1557
pubmed: 28151693
Arthroscopy. 2019 May;35(5):1473-1483
pubmed: 30926192
J Anat. 2013 Oct;223(4):321-8
pubmed: 23906341
Skeletal Radiol. 2018 Dec;47(12):1683-1689
pubmed: 29936559
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Nov;28(11):3576-3586
pubmed: 32358631
Arthrosc Tech. 2017 Apr 10;6(2):e419-e425
pubmed: 28580262
Arthroscopy. 2009 May;25(5):488-95
pubmed: 19409306
Knee Surg Relat Res. 2018 Jun 1;30(2):93-94
pubmed: 29843195
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1993;1(3-4):226-34
pubmed: 8536037
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Aug;38(8):1591-7
pubmed: 20530720
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008 Dec;16(12):679-88
pubmed: 19056917
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Oct;46(12):2865-2872
pubmed: 30193087
Arthrosc Tech. 2012 Mar 31;1(1):e47-52
pubmed: 23766974
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Jan;27(1):166-176
pubmed: 30046994
Arthroscopy. 2016 Jun;32(6):1063-4
pubmed: 27263764
Arthroscopy. 2015 Oct;31(10):2022-34
pubmed: 26116497
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Nov;45(13):3089-3097
pubmed: 28898106
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Jan;47(1):59-65
pubmed: 30452280
Am J Sports Med. 2020 Feb;48(2):285-297
pubmed: 31940222
Am J Sports Med. 1991 Jan-Feb;19(1):21-4; discussion 24-5
pubmed: 2008926

Auteurs

Christophe Jacquet (C)

Institute of Movement and Locomotion, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, St Marguerite Hospital, Marseille, France.

Charles Pioger (C)

Institute of Movement and Locomotion, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, St Marguerite Hospital, Marseille, France.

Romain Seil (R)

Orthopaedic Department, CH Luxembourg, Luxembourg.

Raghbir Khakha (R)

Institute of Movement and Locomotion, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, St Marguerite Hospital, Marseille, France.

Sebastien Parratte (S)

International Knee & Joint Centre, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Camille Steltzlen (C)

Orthopaedic Department CH Mignot, rue de Versailles, Le Chesnay, France.

Jean-Noel Argenson (JN)

Institute of Movement and Locomotion, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, St Marguerite Hospital, Marseille, France.

Nicolas Pujol (N)

Orthopaedic Department CH Mignot, rue de Versailles, Le Chesnay, France.

Matthieu Ollivier (M)

Institute of Movement and Locomotion, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, St Marguerite Hospital, Marseille, France.

Classifications MeSH