Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Augmentation of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is Most Commonly Indicated for Pivot Shift of Grade 2 or Greater and for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

To determine the most common indications for lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) augmentation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2000 to the present (June 2022). Studies that met the following criteria were included: patients of any age who underwent LET in addition to ACLR, studies reporting at least 1 indication for LET, and observational/randomized controlled trial study designs including prevalence of indications. Publications had to be reported in English and peer reviewed and to have originated in the United States or countries offering identical protocols and procedures.

Results

A total of 463 studies were identified from the initial search, 23 of which met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Eight of the 23 studies (34.8%) used a modified Lemaire technique, seven (30.4%) used a MacIntosh modified by Arnold-Coker, and eight (34.8%) used other techniques to perform LET. A total of 2,125 patients (53% female, 47% male [3 studies did not report sex]) underwent ACLR augmented with LET. The indications along with prevalence were as follows: positive pivot shift test (grade ≥2) (19 of 23, 82.6%), revision ACLR (12 of 23, 52.2%), ligamentous laxity (11 of 23, 47.8%), general sports participation (11 of 23, 47.8%), age less than 25 years (8 of 23, 34.8%), high risk of graft failure (5 of 23, 21.7%), and positive Lachman test (4 of 23, 17.4%).

Conclusions

Pivot shift grade ≥2 was the most common reason orthopaedic surgeons chose to add LET to ACLR, with revision ACLR, patient age <25, and general sports participation following closely behind.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.