Lateral extra-articular tenodesis with ACL reconstruction demonstrates better patient-reported outcomes compared to ACL reconstruction alone at 2 years minimum follow-up.

PURPOSE: The role for extra-articular procedures in addition to ACL reconstruction to restore rotational stability is debated. We use lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LEAT) for patients that meet criteria. Our null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between two groups of patients that were treated with ACL reconstruction alone or ACL reconstruction with LEAT according to criteria. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of patients that were treated primarily according to the presence of a high-grade pivot shift with LEAT at the time of ACL reconstruction was propensity-matched with a group of patients that underwent ACL reconstruction alone. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Stratified variable analysis of the groups was also performed. RESULTS: There were 218 and 55 patients in the ACL reconstruction group and ACL reconstruction with LEAT group, respectively. There were 125 patients and 46 patients after propensity matching with a median follow-up of 52 months and 27 months, respectively. Post-operative Lysholm score (P = 0.005), Tegner activity index (P = 0.003) and time to return to sport (P < 0.001) favoured ACL reconstruction with LEAT compared to ACL reconstruction alone. Sports with frequent change of direction maneuvers and higher rates of ACL injury (rugby, soccer, skiing) favoured ACL reconstruction with LEAT versus ACL reconstruction alone (P = 0.001). No significant difference in re-operation rate or type of surgery was found between the two surgical groups after propensity matching but 13 patients in the ACL reconstruction-only group re-injured their ACL, 8 of whom required supplementary LEAT at the time of revision surgery. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes and return to multi-directional sports after ACL reconstruction favour LEAT at the time of ACL reconstruction when narrow inclusion criteria are applied.