Abstract
Objectives
Lateral extra-articular augmentation procedure (LEAP) has been proposed as an additional technique in the setting of revision ACL Reconstruction (ACLR). Few case series have been reported. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results and return to sports of a consecutive series of patients treated for revision ACLR with and without a LEAP.
Methods
We prospectively evaluated a series of patients treated for isolated revision ACL between 2014 and 2015 (group 1) and revision ACL associated with a LEAP from 2015 to 2016 (group 2). We analyzed the surgical technique and graft used for primary and revision ACL and for the LEAP. All patients were evaluated at one-year follow-up with Lysholm score and IKDC evaluation, return to sports and MRI evaluation.
Results
Thirty-six patients were evaluated, eighteen patients in each group. For the revision ACL procedures, 14 autografts and 4 allografts were used in group 1 and 16 autografts and 2 allografts in group 2. For the LEAP, in 13 cases we performed a lateral tenodesis using ilio-tibial band and in 5 patients we used allograft.
The mean age was 32 years (SD 8,5) for group 1 and 28,4 (SD 6,5) for group 2. In group 1, the median Lysholm and IKDC scale was 90 (IQR 27) and 80 (IQR 40) respectively, and in group 2 the median was 90 (IQR 48) and 67,5 (IQR 33) respectively. The difference for IKDC was statistically significant (p=0,000).
Eight patients return to sports in group 1 and seven in group 2.
The MRI shown and homogeneous neoligament in 66% of patients in group 1 and 61% in group 2.
Conclusion
Despite there was a statistically significant difference in IKDC results in favor of group 2, we found no differences in return to sports, Lysholm score and MRI imaging when a LEAP was associated at one year follow-up.