Editorial Commentary: Failure to Regain Full Hyperextension After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is Associated With Inferior Patient Satisfaction and Lower Functional Outcomes Scores, But the Impact on Graft Rupture Rates and Persistent Instability Is Unclear.

Up to one half of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction demonstrate some degree of knee hyperextension in their contralateral limb. In most cases, this is mild (1°-5°), but it is reported that 9% and 0.8% demonstrate moderate (6°-10°) and severe (>10°) degrees of hyperextension. These characteristics pose challenges and considerations for surgical management. This includes the finding that failure to regain full hyperextension is common and is associated with inferior functional outcomes and patient satisfaction, and the juxtaposition that regaining full hyperextension may increase graft rupture and persistent instability rates. Although the pathophysiology of extension deficit is multifactorial, 2 particularly important and modifiable risk factors in this population are notch impingement and arthrogenic muscle inhibition. Strategies to avoid notch impingement include anterior notchplasty and careful consideration of graft size, graft type, and tibial tunnel placement. Arthrogenic muscle inhibition is clinically characterized by extension deficit and quadriceps activation failure. It is reversible in most patients and therefore an important modifiable risk factor. Since failure to regain full hyperextension is associated with inferior outcomes, abolishing extension deficit should be a key objective of surgical treatment and rehabilitation. Concerns regarding the risks of persistent laxity and graft rupture in knee hyperlaxity/hyperextension patients can be mitigated by the addition of anterolateral ligament reconstruction.

Bursal acromial resurfacing offers improved biomechanics in laboratory studies but there is no consensus on indications, technique or graft type, and clinical results are lacking.

Bursal acromial reconstruction/resurfacing, acromiograft and biologic tuberoplasty are all terms used to describe the concept of fixing a graft (human dermal allograft or fascia lata) to the undersurface of the acromion or onto the greater tuberosity with the aim of achieving pain relief and improved function in patients with massive irreparable cuff tears (MIRCTs). The rationale for these procedures is based on the biomechanical concept that an interpositional spacer can reverse superior migration of the humeral head, increase acromiohumeral distance, reduce subacromial contact pressure and limit painful bone-on-bone contact. These types of procedures are postulated to offer potential advantages (cost savings related to use of implants, long-term biologic solution, technical ease of surgery and short surgical time), over other options for MIRCTs, particularly superior capsule reconstruction and in some respects the subacromial balloon. However, these advantages remain unproven because published clinical studies are sparse. Furthermore, there is no current consensus on indications, technique, or optimum graft choice.

Secondary Meniscectomy Rates and Risk Factors for Failed Repair of Ramp Lesions Performed at the Time of Primary ACL Reconstruction: An Analysis of 1037 Patients From the SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating secondary meniscectomy rates and risk factors for failure of ramp repair are sparse and limited by small numbers and heterogeneity. PURPOSES/HYPOTHESIS: The purposes were to determine the secondary meniscectomy rate for failure of ramp repair performed using a posteromedial portal suture hook at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and to identify risk factors for secondary meniscectomy. It was hypothesized that patients who underwent ACLR combined with a lateral extra-articular procedure (LEAP) would experience significantly lower rates of secondary meniscectomy compared with those undergoing isolated ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary ACLR and ramp repair between 2013 and 2020 were included in the study. Final follow-up for each patient was defined by his or her last appointment recorded in a prospective database (with a study end date of March 2023). The database and medical records were used to determine whether patients had undergone secondary meniscectomy for failure of ramp repair. Survivorship of ramp repair (using secondary meniscectomy as an endpoint) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis was used to investigate possible risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 1037 patients were included in the study. The secondary meniscectomy rate after ramp repair was 7.7% at a mean final follow-up of 72.4 months. Patients without combined ACLR + LEAP were >2-fold more likely to undergo a secondary medial meniscectomy compared with those with combined ACLR + LEAP (hazard ratio, 2.455; 95% CI, 1.457-4.135; P = .0007). Age, sex, preoperative Tegner score, and time between injury and surgery were not significant risk factors for failure. CONCLUSION: The rate of secondary meniscectomy after ramp repair performed through a posteromedial portal at the time of primary ACLR was low. Patients who underwent isolated ACLR (rather than ACLR + LEAP) were >2-fold more likely to undergo a secondary medial meniscectomy for failure of ramp repair. Additional risk factors for failure of ramp repair were not identified.

Editorial Commentary: Evidence That the Shoulder Latarjet Procedure Results in Scapular Dyskinesia Is Not Compelling.

The Latarjet procedure was first described in 1954. It is a nonanatomic procedure that requires transfer of the coracoid process, together with the conjoint tendon, to the anterior glenoid margin. The aim is to prevent recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation through a "triple blocking" effect, which includes restoring bone loss, providing a dynamic sling effect, and performing capsulolabral repair. Despite the long history of the Latarjet procedure, studies evaluating its impact on scapulothoracic kinematics are sparse. However, there is a concern that scapulothoracic dyskinesia may occur owing to anatomic changes, including release of the coracoacromial ligament and pectoralis minor tendon, a change in the working length and vector of the conjoint tendon, subscapularis split, and capsular closure. The existing literature has major limitations and comprises predominantly small conflicting series that identify either no scapulothoracic dyskinesia after Latarjet or the presence of scapular protraction or retraction. Given that scapular dyskinesia is very common in shoulder instability patients and even asymptomatic general populations, the evidence that the Latarjet procedure results in dyskinesia is not compelling.

Effect of Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures Combined With ACL Reconstruction on the Rate of Graft Rupture in Patients Aged Older Than 30 Years: A Matched-Pair Analysis of 1102 Patients From the SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have demonstrated significant advantages of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) and lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAPs) over isolated ACLR in terms of reducing graft rupture and reoperation rates. However, most of the published studies have included young patients, and no studies have focused on patients aged >30 years. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of isolated ACLR versus ACLR + LEAP at midterm follow-up in patients aged >30 years. The hypothesis was that patients who underwent combined procedures would experience significantly lower rates of graft rupture. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients >30 years of age who underwent primary ACLR + LEAP between January 2003 and December 2020 were propensity matched at a 1:1 ratio to patients who underwent isolated ACLR. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed to determine graft rupture rates, knee stability, reoperation rates, and complications. Graft survivorship was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors associated with the occurrence of graft failure were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Two groups of 551 patients each were included in the study, and the mean follow-up was 97.19 ± 47.23 months. The overall mean age was 37.01 ± 6.24 years. The LEAP group consisted of 503 (91.3%) patients who had anterolateral ligament reconstruction and 48 (8.7%) patients who had a Lemaire procedure. Overall, 19 (1.7%) patients had graft failure: 15 (2.7%) in the no-LEAP group and 4 (0.7%) in the LEAP group (P = .0116). The risk of graft failure was significantly associated with the absence of LEAP (31 vs 12; hazard ratio, 3.309; 95% CI, 1.088-10.065; P = .0350) and age between 30 and 35 years (hazard ratio, 4.533; 95% CI, 1.484-13.841; P = .0080). A higher rate of reoperation for secondary meniscectomy was found in the no-LEAP group (5.6% vs 2.2%; P = .0031). CONCLUSION: Patients aged >30 years who underwent combined ACLR and LEAP experienced a >3-fold lower risk of ACL graft failure compared with those who underwent isolated ACLR. Furthermore, the group without LEAP experienced a higher rate of secondary meniscectomy.

Editorial Commentary: Knee Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Procedures: Appropriate Study Design Is Essential for Reducing Conflicting Findings and Unnecessary Controversy in the Orthopaedic Literature.

Knee lateral extra-articular tenodesis procedures (LEAPs) reduce graft rupture rates when performed at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction, LEAPs are less studied and remain controversial. Many studies support combined procedures (ACL + LEAP), yet others do not. When the literature comprises small patient cohorts and short follow-up periods, conflicting results often arise. The controversy surrounding them may be unnecessarily generated by the publication of low-quality studies. Future studies should focus on adequate power; appropriate design and methodology, including matching or randomization to account for potential confounding factors; proper statistical analyses; and avoidance of spin bias.

Editorial Commentary: Bioinductive Collagen Implants Reduce Rotator Cuff Retear, yet Cost-Effectiveness and Improvement in Clinical Outcomes Are Unclear.

The estimated health care costs of failed arthroscopic rotator cuff retears (RCRs) performed in the United States represent a huge economic burden of greater than $400 million per 2-year period. Unfortunately, retear rates do not appear to have improved significantly since the 1980s, despite advances in surgical technology and the biomechanics of repair. The failure of these advances to translate into improved clinical results suggests that the limiting step in reducing retear rates is biology rather than the biomechanics of repair. Bioinductive collagen implants (BCIs) are an emerging and potentially useful option for biological augmentation. Recent meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies demonstrates that biological augmentation significantly lowers the risk of retear. Retrieval studies from human RCR subjects who underwent treatment with BCI demonstrate cellular incorporation, tissue formation, and maturation, providing a logical basis for a reduction in retear rates as well as small increases in tendon thickness at the footprint. Although BCIs show potential as a possible game-changing solution for reducing failure rates of RCR, concerns remain regarding cost-effectiveness analyses and demonstration of functional outcome improvement.

Editorial Commentary: Ceiling Effects Are a Limitation of Frequently Used Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures Used to Assess Shoulder Function: Appropriate Selection of Shoulder Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures Is Required-Especially in Athletes.

Ceiling effects (CEs) are a major limitation of frequently used patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in the assessment of shoulder function. It is generally considered that a CE may be present when the best possible score for a given PROM is achieved by at least 15% of the study population. When a CE occurs, it typically indicates that the scoring criteria are relatively easy and therefore may not reliably capture greater levels of patient function. This is a particular problem with the use of activities of daily living-oriented PROMs in the evaluation of athletic patients because they can still score highly, despite limitations in athletic shoulder function. When a CE is present, it can result in failure to determine the true efficacy of a procedure, limited responsiveness to change, and furthermore if a subsequent comparison of 2 groups of patients is undertaken, it may produce similar results despite meaningful differences between them. It is important to recognize that CEs are common and have important consequences but that careful selection of PROMs adapted to the characteristics of the study population and the specific research question can help to mitigate these issues.

Incidence of and Risk Factors for Arthrogenic Muscle Inhibition in Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: A Cross-Sectional Study and Analysis of Associated Factors From the SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) is a process in which neural inhibition after injury or surgery to the knee results in quadriceps activation failure and knee extension deficit. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and spectrum of the severity of AMI after acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury using the Sonnery-Cottet classification, to determine the interobserver reliability of the classification system, and to investigate potential important factors associated with AMI after ACL injury. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Consecutive patients who had an acute ACL injury between October 2021 and February 2022 were considered for study inclusion. Eligible patients underwent a standardized physical examination at their first outpatient appointment. This included an assessment of quadriceps inhibition, identification of any extension deficits, and grading of AMI and its reversibility according to the Sonnery-Cottet classification. RESULTS: A total of 300 consecutive patients with acute ACL ruptures were prospectively enrolled in the study. Of them, 170 patients (56.7%) had AMI. Patients evaluated with AMI showed a significantly inferior Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Simple Knee Value, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score than patients without AMI (P < .0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of effusion, concomitant injuries, and high pain scores were associated with a significantly greater risk of AMI. Additional associations with the presence of AMI included a short duration between injury and evaluation, the use of crutches, and using a pillow as a support at night. In contrast, a previous ACL injury was associated with significantly lower odds of developing AMI (OR, 0.025; 95% CI, 0-0.2; P = .014). Among the 170 patients with AMI, 135 patients (79%) showed a resolution of their inhibition at the end of the consultation after application of simple exercises; the remaining 35 patients required specific rehabilitation. Interobserver reliability of the classification system was almost perfect (95% CI, 0.86-0.99). CONCLUSION: AMI occurs in over half of patients with acute ACL injuries. When it occurs, it is easily reversible in the majority of patients with simple exercises targeted at abolishing AMI. The presence of "red flags" should increase the index of suspicion for the presence of AMI, and these include the presence of an effusion, high pain scores, a short time between injury and evaluation, multiligament injuries, the use of crutches, and using a pillow as a support at night. Patients with a history of ipsilateral or contralateral ACL injury are at a significantly lower risk of AMI than those with a first-time ACL injury.

Incidence of and Risk Factors for Medial Meniscal Lesions at the Time of ACL Reconstruction: An Analysis of 4697 Knees From the SANTI Study Group Database.

BACKGROUND: Medial meniscal (MM) lesions (MMLs) are a common finding at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). It is recognized that evaluation of the posteromedial compartment reduces the rate of missed MML diagnoses. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of MMLs in patients undergoing ACLR, when using a standardized arthroscopic approach that included posteromedial compartment evaluation, as well as to determine how the incidence of MMLs changed with increasing time intervals between injury and surgery, and to investigate what risk factors were associated with their presence. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. All patients who underwent primary ACLR between January 2013 and March 2023 were considered for study eligibility. The epidemiology was defined by categorizing and reporting the incidence and categorizing the spectrum of MM tear types. Risk factors associated with MMLs were analyzed using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: MMLs were identified in 1851 (39.4%) of 4697 consecutive patients undergoing ACLR. The overall incidence of MMLs was 33.1% for the period of 0 to 3 months, 38.7% for the period of 3 to 12 months, and 59.6% for the period of >12 months. The overall incidence of MMLs increased with longer durations of time between injury and surgery, along with significant increases in complex, bucket-handle, ramp, and/or flap lesions. The largest increase in incidence of MMLs was observed for complex MM tear patterns. Risk factors associated with MMLs included time between injury and surgery >3 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.320; 95% CI, 1.155-1.509; P < .0001) and >12 months (OR, 3.052; 95% CI, 2.553-3.649; P < .0001), male sex (OR, 1.501; 95% CI, 1.304-1.729; P < .0001), body mass index (BMI) ≥25 (OR, 1.193; 95% CI, 1.046-1.362; P = .0088), and lateral meniscal lesion (OR, 1.737; 95% CI, 1.519-1.986; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Overall, MMLs were identified in 39.4% of 4697 patients undergoing ACLR when posteromedial compartment evaluation was performed in addition to standard anterior viewing. The incidence of MMLs and the complexity of tear types increased significantly with increasing time intervals between the index injury and ACLR. Secondary risk factors associated with an increased incidence of medial meniscal tears include male sex, increased BMI, and lateral meniscal lesions.

Editorial Commentary: The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Is Less Important Than It Sounds: Patients Seek to Achieve Substantial Clinical Benefits and Not Minimally Perceptible Improvements When They Undergo Arthroscopic Surgery.

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a frequently reported metric for describing within-patient improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). It was originally defined by Jaeschke et al. as "the smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate, in the absence of troublesome side effects and excessive cost, a change in the patient's management." The latter part of this statement is often omitted, and this results in a loss of the originally intended value through lack of sufficient clinical importance to change management. Other pitfalls in the use of the MCID include that they are population- and condition-specific. As such, MCIDs lack external validity and cannot easily be extrapolated from one study to another. Furthermore, broadly different values can be obtained depending on the calculation method used. This makes the MCID an unhelpful metric when seeking to understand the true efficacy of a given intervention. The Food and Drug Administration recommends anchor-based methodologies (which take into account patient perception), over distribution-based methods (which are purely statistical and do not account for clinical meaningfulness to patients). Regardless, it should be noted that even anchor-based methodologies are susceptible to statistical bias, and measures are apt to be influenced by the regression to mean phenomena, where the value of the preintervention scores and their relationship to postintervention scores can bias estimates of the MCID. Finally, when using MCIDs, one must consider that they are a low bar. This means that patients do not undergo treatment to achieve minimally perceptible clinical improvements; instead, they undergo treatment with the hope of achieving substantial clinical benefit or a patient acceptable symptom state, and so these are more appropriate individual-level metrics to consider when evaluating clinically meaningful outcomes of treatment.

Editorial Commentary: Corticosteroid Injections Administered Within 4 Weeks Before Shoulder Arthroscopy Are Associated With an Increased Risk of Infection.

Corticosteroid injections are a frequently used modality for addressing shoulder pain. The widespread utilization of corticosteroid injections is supported by clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements including the 2019 American Academy for Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines for the management of rotator cuff injuries. However, steroids may be detrimental to healing potential following cuff repair and increase the risk of re-tear. In addition, corticosteroid injections administered within 4 weeks prior to shoulder arthroscopy are associated with an increased risk of infection. The degree of risk is dependent on the timing of surgery with longer time intervals between injection and shoulder arthroscopy being associated with less risk. The next version of the AAOS clinical practice guidelines for managing rotator cuff tears should incorporate commentary on the specific risk of surgical site infection following pre-operative corticosteroid injections, as well as on the timing of injections, with the aim of increasing awareness of these potentially devastating adverse effects.

Comparison of Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Structures to Reconstruction and Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis at 2-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Lateral extra-articular procedures have been effective in reducing graft rupture rates after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), but the evidence supporting their role in ACL repair is sparse. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of ACLR and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) (ACLR+LET) against combined repair of the ACL and anterolateral (AL) structures (ACL+AL Repair). It was hypothesized that patients undergoing ACL+AL Repair would have noninferior clinical and radiological outcomes with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, knee laxity parameters, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that patients undergoing repair would have significantly better Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) values and shorter times to return to the preinjury level of sport, without any increase in the rate of ipsilateral second ACL injury. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Consecutive patients evaluated with an acute ACL tear were considered for study eligibility. ACLR+LET was only performed when intraoperative tear characteristics contraindicated ACL repair. Patient-reported outcome measures such as the IKDC score, Lysholm score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); reinjury rates; anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference; and MRI characteristics were reported at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The noninferiority study was based on the IKDC subjective score; side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference; and signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ). The noninferiority margins were defined using the existing literature. An a priori sample size calculation was performed using the IKDC subjective score as the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (47 ACLR+LET, 53 ACL+AL Repair) with a mean follow-up of 25.2 months (range, 24-31 months) were enrolled and underwent surgery within 15 days of injury. At the final follow-up, the differences between groups with respect to the IKDC score, anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference, and SNQ did not exceed noninferiority thresholds. ACL+AL Repair was associated with a shorter time to return to the preinjury level of sport (ACL+AL Repair: mean, 6.4 months; ACLR+LET: mean, 9.5 months; P < .01), better FJS-12 values (ACL+AL Repair: mean, 91.4; ACLR+LET: mean, 97.4; P = .04), and a higher proportion of patients achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the KOOS subdomains studied (Symptoms: 90.2% vs 67.4%, P = .005; Sport and Recreation: 94.1% vs 67.4%, P < .001; Quality of Life: 92.2% vs 73.9%, P = .01). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to ipsilateral second ACL injury rates (ACL+AL Repair group, 3.8% and ACLR+LET group, 2.1% [n = 1]; P = .63). CONCLUSION: ACL+AL Repair yielded clinical outcomes that were noninferior to (or not significantly different from) ACLR+LET with respect to IKDC subjective, Tegner activity level, and Lysholm scores; knee laxity parameters; graft maturity; and rates of failure and reoperation. However, there were significant advantages of ACL+AL Repair, including a shorter duration of time to return to the preinjury level of sport, better FJS-12 values, and a higher proportion of patients achieving PASS for KOOS subdomains studied (Symptoms, Sport and Recreation, Quality of Life).

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Plus Lateral Extra-Articular Procedure Results in Superior Stability and Lower Failure Rates Than Does Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision but Shows No Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes or Return to Sports.

PURPOSE: To determine whether comparative clinical studies demonstrate significant advantages of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR) combined with a lateral extra-articular procedure (LEAP), with respect to graft rupture rates, knee stability, return to sport rates, and patient-reported outcome measures, compared with isolated RACLR. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses Guidelines. A PubMed search was conducted using the key words "revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" combined with any of the following additional terms, "lateral extra-articular tenodesis" OR "anterolateral ligament reconstruction" OR "Lemaire." All relevant comparative clinical studies were included. Key clinical data were extracted and evaluated. RESULTS: Eight comparative studies (seven Level III studies and a one Level IV study) were identified and included. Most studies reported more favorable outcomes with combined procedures with respect to failure rates (0%-13% following RACLR+LEAP, and 4.4%-21.4% following isolated RACLR), postoperative side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference (1.3-3.9 mm following RACLR+LEAP and 1.8-5.9 mm following isolated RACLR), and high-grade pivot shift (0%-11.1% following RACLR+LEAP and 10.2%-23.8% in patients following isolated RACLR). There were no consistent differences between isolated and combined procedures with respect to return to sport or patient-reported outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that the addition of a LEAP to RACLR was associated with an advantage with respect to ACL graft failure rates and avoidance of high-grade postoperative knee laxity across almost all included studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Systematic review of level III to IV studies.

Editorial Commentary: Lateral Extra-articular Procedures Concomitant to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Must Balance Clinical Efficacy and the Risk of Kinematic Restraint.

Lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAPs) performed concomitant to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improve clinical outcomes and can restore normal knee kinematics. However, some LEAPs may result in overconstraint depending on technique. When using an iliotibial band based technique, passing the graft deep to the lateral collateral ligament and fixing it on the lateral cortex (rather than in a tunnel with an interference screw) minimizes the risk of tunnel collision and may also reduce the risk of overconstraint. Although several laboratory studies report overconstraint with iliotibial band based procedures, clinical reports of overconstraint are rare. This may be due to lack of a clear definition of clinical overconstraint and resultant underdiagnosis. However, long term randomised controlled study has demonstrated significantly higher rates of osteoarthritis when a modified Lemaire is added to an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. There is clearly a need for further study and in the meantime clinical efficacy must be balanced with the risk of kinematic restriction.

Clinical Outcomes After Combined ACL and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Versus Isolated ACL Reconstruction With Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafts: A Matched-Pair Analysis of 2018 Patients From the SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts are widely considered the standard for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The aims of this study were to compare the clinical outcomes after ACLR with gold standard BPTB autografts versus combined ACLR + anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) with hamstring tendon (HT) autografts at medium-term follow-up in a large series of propensity-matched patients. The hypothesis was that combined ACLR + ALLR with HT autografts would result in lower graft rupture rates and non-graft rupture-related reoperation rates. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients undergoing combined ACLR + ALLR using HT autografts between January 2003 and December 2019 were propensity matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients undergoing isolated ACLR using BPTB autografts. At the end of the study period, graft ruptures, contralateral knee injuries, and any other reoperations or complications after the index procedure were identified by a search of a prospective database and a review of medical records. RESULTS: A total of 1009 matched pairs were included. The mean duration of follow-up was 101.3 ± 59.9 months. Patients in the isolated group were >3-fold more likely to have graft failure than those in the combined group (hazard ratio, 3.554 [95% CI, 1.744-7.243]; P = .0005). Patients aged <20 years were at a particularly high risk of graft ruptures compared with patients aged >30 years (hazard ratio, 5.650 [95% CI, 1.834-17.241]; P = .0002). Additionally, there was a significantly higher reoperation rate after isolated ACLR than after combined ACLR + ALLR (20.5% vs 8.9%, respectively; P < .0001). The overall rate of subsequent contralateral ruptures was 9.1% after index surgery (isolated: 10.2%; combined: 8.0%; P = .0934), indicating that the risk profiles for both groups were similar. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent isolated ACLR with BPTB autografts experienced significantly worse graft survivorship and overall reoperation-free survivorship compared with those who underwent combined ACLR + ALLR with HT autografts. The risk of graft ruptures was >3-fold higher in patients who underwent isolated ACLR using BPTB autografts.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair because of theoretical advantages over ACL reconstruction; however, the contemporary literature has failed to provide high-quality evidence to demonstrate these advantages. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and functional outcomes of ACL repair versus ACL reconstruction at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who underwent ACL repair were propensity matched (based on demographics, time between injury and surgery, knee laxity parameters, presence of meniscal lesions, preoperative activity level, and sport participation), in a 1:1 ratio, to those who underwent ACL reconstruction during the same period. Isokinetic testing was used to evaluate strength deficits at 6 months postoperatively. Knee laxity parameters were evaluated at 12 months. Complications, return to sport, and patient-reported outcome scores were recorded at final follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 75 matched pairs (150 patients) were evaluated. The repair group had significantly better mean hamstring muscle strength at 6 months compared with the reconstruction group (1.7% ± 12.2% vs -10.0% ± 12.8%, respectively; P < .0001). At a mean final follow-up of 30.0 ± 4.8 months, the repair group had a significantly better mean Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) score compared with the reconstruction group (82.0 ± 15.1 vs 74.2 ± 21.7, respectively; P = .017). Noninferiority criteria were met for ACL repair, compared with ACL reconstruction, with respect to the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score (86.8 ± 9.0 vs 86.7 ± 10.1, respectively; P < .0001) and side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference (1.1 ± 1.4 vs 0.6 ± 1.0 mm, respectively; P < .0001). No significant differences were found for other functional outcomes or the pivot-shift grade. There were no significant differences in the rate of return to the preinjury level of sport (repair group: 74.7%; reconstruction group: 60.0%; P = .078). A significant difference was observed regarding the occurrence of ACL reruptures (repair group: 5.3%; reconstruction group: 0.0%; P = .045). Patients who experienced a failure of ACL repair were significantly younger than those who did not (26.8 vs 40.7 years, respectively; P = .013). There was no significant difference in rupture rates between the repair and reconstruction groups when only patients aged >21 years were considered (2.9% vs 0.0%, respectively; P = .157). The minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were defined for the ACL repair group. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the repair group achieved the PASS for the FJS-12 compared with their counterparts in the reconstruction group (77.3% vs 60.0%, respectively; P = .034). CONCLUSION: ACL repair was associated with some advantages over ACL reconstruction including superior hamstring muscle strength at 6 months and significantly better FJS-12 scores. However, the failure rate was significantly higher after ACL repair, and younger patients were particularly at risk.

Management of the Failed First Revision ACL Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes of Nonsurgical Management Versus Second Revision ACL Reconstruction From the SANTI Group.

BACKGROUND: The optimum management strategy after failure of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR) is not clearly defined. The literature evaluating differences in outcomes between surgical and nonsurgical management is sparse. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to evaluate the outcomes of surgical versus nonsurgical management of failed first RACLR. It was hypothesized that the long-term clinical outcomes of second RACLR would be superior with respect to knee stability, return to sport, and patient-reported outcome measures when compared with nonsurgical treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who experienced failure of first RACLR were evaluated. All participants followed the same rehabilitation protocol regardless of whether they underwent nonsurgical treatment or a second RACLR. Follow-up comprised regular clinical review and a standardized telephone interview at the end of the study period. Patient-reported outcome measures were recorded at the final follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients with a mean follow-up of 104 ± 52.7 months (range, 40-140 months) were evaluated. Of these, 31 underwent a second RACLR, and 10 patients chose nonsurgical treatment. There was a high rate of return to sport in both groups, but patients undergoing second RACLR had significantly better Tegner (6.35 vs 4.8; P = .012), Lysholm (88.5 vs 78.3; P = .0353), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life (72.6 vs 56.3; P = .0490), and KOOS Sport and Recreation scores (81.4 vs 62.5; P = .0033). Significantly more patients undergoing second RACLR achieved the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for KOOS Sport and Recreation than those who underwent nonsurgical management (74.2% vs 30%; P = .015). The most important predictor of failure to achieve a good/excellent Lysholm score in multivariate analysis was nonsurgical management (P = .0095). CONCLUSION: Both second RACLR and nonsurgical management of failed first RACLR were associated with high rates of return to sport. However, second RACLR was associated with significantly better functional outcome scores with respect to Tegner, Lysholm, KOOS Quality of Life, and KOOS Sport and Recreation scores compared to nonsurgical management. In addition, nonsurgical treatment was the only significant predictor of failure to achieve a good/excellent Lysholm score at the final follow-up, and this was likely a function of inferior knee stability in that group.

Editorial Commentary: Nonanatomic Lateral Extra-Articular Procedures Performed at the Time of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Risk Overconstraint: Anatomic Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Does Not.

Isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with a risk of graft rupture that is more than 5-fold higher than that of combined anterior cruciate ligament-anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction at a mean follow-up of greater than 100 months. However, biomechanical and clinical studies report that overconstraint is a concern with nonanatomic lateral-sided reconstruction. In fact, the normal biomechanics of the native ALL are anisometric. The ligament is tight in extension (providing rotational control) and slack in flexion (allowing physiological internal rotation). The ALL femoral attachment is proximal and posterior to the lateral epicondyle. The tibial tunnel or tunnels are located anterior to the fibular head and posterior to the Gerdy tubercle. An ALL graft must lie deep to the iliotibial band and superficial to the lateral collateral ligament. Fixation is performed in extension and neutral rotation. A single- or double-strand technique may be used. Surgeons performing lateral extra-articular procedures must understand the technical pitfalls that can lead to overconstraint and must seek to avoid them. Overconstraint can occur for a number of reasons, including the use of nonanatomic reconstruction and technical errors in tensioning, fixation angle, and tunnel positioning.