A Lateral Extra-articular Procedure Reduces the Failure Rate of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery Without Increasing Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Lateral extra-articular procedures are becoming increasingly popular in association with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, especially in patients with persistent rotatory instability and in a high-risk population. However, few studies have investigated the outcomes of the lateral extra-articular procedure as an associated procedure in an ACL revision (R-ACLR) setting and its benefit with respect to isolated intra-articular reconstruction.

Hypothesis: Lateral extra-articular procedures reduce the failure rate of revision ACL reconstruction (R-ACLR).

Purpose: To compare subjective outcomes, knee stability, and failure and complication rates between patients who underwent ACL revision with and without an associated lateral extra-articular procedure.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and OVID databases was performed on September 2022 in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Eligible studies were trials directly comparing patients who had isolated ACL revision with patients who had ACL revision associated with lateral extra-articular procedures at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. A meta-analysis was performed, and bias and the quality of the evidence were rated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.

Results: Eight studies were included: a total of 334 patients were treated with isolated revision (isolated (R-ACLR)) and 342 treated with combined revision and a lateral extra-articular procedure (combined (R-ACLR)). For the failure rate, the meta-analysis showed a significantly decreased relative risk reduction of 54% ( = .004) in patients with combined (R-ACLR) with respect to isolated R-ACL, whereas no difference in complication rate was observed. The combined (R-ACLR) group demonstrated a decreased risk ratio of 50% ( = .002) for having a positive pivot-shift test result and a relative risk reduction of 68% ( = .003) for having a grade 2-3 pivot shift when compared with the isolated (R-ACLR) group. Finally, no significant differences were observed among the lateral extra-articular procedures.

Conclusion: The addition of a lateral extra-articular procedure to revision ACL significantly reduced the failure rate and postoperative pivot shift without increasing the complication rate. Anterolateral ligament reconstruction and a lateral extra-articular procedure with iliotibial band were effective in improving the outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction. Further high-level studies could help to clarify which subgroup of patients could particularly benefit from an anterolateral procedure in the context of ACL revision.