Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose To evaluate the results of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction in patients with chronic ACL injury. It was hypothesized that patients who underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction would exhibit less residual laxity and better clinical outcomes. Methods Two groups of patients were evaluated and compared retrospectively. Both groups consisted only of patients with chronic (more than 12 months) ACL injuries. Patients in group 1 underwent anatomical intra-articular reconstruction of the ACL and patients in group 2 underwent anatomic intra-articular ACL reconstruction combined with ALL reconstruction. The presence of associated meniscal injury, the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm functional outcome scores in the postoperative period, KT-1000 evaluation, the presence of residual pivot shift and graft rupture rate were evaluated. Results One hundred and one patients who underwent reconstruction of chronic ACL injuries were evaluated. The median follow-up was 26 (24–29) months for group 1 and 25 (24–28) months for group 2. There were no significant differences between groups regarding gender, age, duration of injury until reconstruction, follow-up time or presence of associated meniscal injuries in the preoperative period. Regarding functional outcome scores, patients in group 2 presented better results on both the IKDC ( p  = 0.0013) and the Lysholm ( p  < 0.0001) evaluations. In addition, patients in group 2 had better KT-1000 evaluation ( p  = 0.048) and a lower pivot shift rate at physical examination, presenting only 9.1% positivity versus 35.3% in the isolated ACL reconstruction ( p  = 0.011). Regarding re-ruptures, group 1 presented 5 (7.3%) cases, and group 2 presented no cases. Conclusion The combined ACL and ALL reconstruction in patients with chronic ACL injury is an effective and safety solution and leads to good functional outcomes with no increase in complication rate. The clinical relevance of this finding is the possibility to indicate this type of procedure when patients present with more than 12 months after injury for surgery. Level of evidence Level III.

Purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the latest research on the anterolateral ligament (ALL) and present the consensus of the ALL Expert Group on the anatomy, radiographic landmarks, biomechanics, clinical and radiographic diagnosis, lesion classification, surgical technique and clinical outcomes. A consensus on controversial subjects surrounding the ALL and anterolateral knee instability has been established based on the opinion of experts, the latest publications on the subject and an exchange of experiences during the ALL Experts Meeting (November 2015, Lyon, France). The ALL is found deep to the iliotibial band. The femoral origin is just posterior and proximal to the lateral epicondyle; the tibial attachment is 21.6 mm posterior to Gerdy’s tubercle and 4–10 mm below the tibial joint line. On a lateral radiographic view the femoral origin is located in the postero-inferior quadrant and the tibial attachment is close to the centre of the proximal tibial plateau. Favourable isometry of an ALL reconstruction is seen when the femoral position is proximal and posterior to the lateral epicondyle, with the ALL being tight upon extension and lax upon flexion. The ALL can be visualised on ultrasound, or on T2-weighted coronal MRI scans with proton density fat-suppressed evaluation. The ALL injury is associated with a Segond fracture, and often occurs in conjunction with acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Recognition and repair of the ALL lesions should be considered to improve the control of rotational stability provided by ACL reconstruction. For high-risk patients, a combined ACL and ALL reconstruction improves rotational control and reduces the rate of re-rupture, without increased postoperative complication rates compared to ACL-only reconstruction. In conclusion this paper provides a contemporary consensus on all studied features of the ALL. The findings warrant future research in order to further test these early observations, with the ultimate goal of improving the long-term outcomes of ACL-injured patients. Level of evidence Level V—Expert opinion.

Purpose Injury to the anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee has recently received attention as a potential risk factor for failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. However, evaluation of the anterolateral ligament is currently difficult, and radiologic data are sparse with regard to the normal appearance of this ligament. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the ALL could be identified and visualized using ultrasonography. Methods Ten non-paired, fresh-frozen cadaveric knees underwent ultrasound by an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist using a Siemens S2000 Acuson Ultrasound machine with a 14-MHz linear transducer. After first identifying anatomical landmarks by palpation, a thin band of tissue originating in the vicinity of the fibular collateral ligament (FCL) origin was identified and followed up distally. The tibia was held at 30° of flexion and internally rotated to verify tightening of the structure. Under ultrasound guidance, 25-gauge hypodermic needles were placed at what were sonographically determined to be the origin and insertion points of the ligament. One-tenth of a CC of aniline blue dye was injected. The specimens were then dissected to confirm the presence and location of the ALL. If an ALL was found, distances between the epicentre of the injected dye and the actual origin and insertion points were calculated. Additionally, ligament length based on dissection images and ultrasound images was calculated. Results Eight of ten specimens had an anterolateral structure that originated from the lateral femoral epicondyle just posterior and superior to the origin of the FCL and inserted on the lateral plateau approximately halfway between Gerdy’s tubercle and the fibular head. The average length based on ultrasound was 3.8 cm (±.7; range 3.1–4.7) and 4.1 cm (±1.1; range 2.6–6.1) based on dissection. Length based on dissection and ultrasound had minimal agreement (ICC = .308; 95 % confidence interval .257–.382, p  = .265). The average width of the structure on dissection was .8 cm (±.24; range .5–1.2). The mean distance from ultrasound-determined origin and insertion points to anatomical origin and insertion based on dissection was 10.9 mm (±2.9, range 7.0–15.8) and 12.5 mm (±5.7 range 3.2–19.3), respectively. Inter-observer reliability was excellent for all measurements based on dissection and ultrasound. Conclusion Ultrasound was unable to reliably identify the anterolateral structure from its femoral to tibial attachment sites. Distinguishing it from the posterior IT band and anterolateral capsule was challenging, and it is possible that the structure is a thickened band of fascia rather than a true ligament. As a clinical diagnostic tool, ultrasound likely offers little utility in the evaluation of the ALL for injury. Level of evidence IV.

Despite remarkable advances in the clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs), residual rotational instability of the knee joint remains a major concern. Since the anterolateral ligament (ALL) on the knee joint has been “rediscovered”, the role of anterolateral structures, including ALL and deep iliotibial band, as secondary stabilizers of anterolateral rotatory instability has gained interest. This interest has led to the resurgence of anterolateral procedures combined with ACLRs to restore rotational stability in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiencies. However, the difference in concepts between anterolateral ligament reconstructions (ALLRs) as anatomical reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LETs) as non-anatomical reinforcement has been conflicting in present literature. This study aimed to review the anatomy and biomechanics of anterolateral structures, surgical techniques, and the clinical outcomes of anterolateral procedures, including LET and ALLR, in patients with ACL deficiencies.

Background: In combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction, there is a risk of collision between the femoral tunnels of the ACL and ALL. Purpose: To identify (1) the optimal knee flexion angle when creating the femoral tunnel for ACL reconstruction using the transportal technique and (2) the optimal orientation of the ALL femoral tunnel to minimize collisions between the tunnels. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Computed tomography scans from 10 participants were used to create 3-dimensional (3D) models. A 3D-reconstructed knee model at 90°of flexion was virtually further flexed to 5 different angles (100°-140°; 10° interval). Relationship between the ACL femoral tunnel created at 5 different flexion angles using transportal technique and ALL femoral tunnel created with 25 orientations (5 axial × 5 coronal) were analyzed. The minimal distance between tunnels was measured, and collisions between tunnels were investigated. The characteristics of each tunnel including tunnel length and wall breakage were also assessed. Results: An ACL femoral tunnel created at a knee flexion angle of 140° inevitably overlaps with ALL femoral tunnels in all orientations. Considering tunnel length and posterior wall blowout, knee flexion angles from 120° to 130° were considered suitable for ACL femoral tunnel drilling. The optimal ALL drill orientations to minimize collision between the tunnels were identified as axial 20° to coronal 0°, axial 30° to coronal 0°, and axial 30° to coronal 10°, demonstrating no collision between tunnels when the ACL femoral tunnel was created at a knee flexion of 120° to 130°. Conclusion: A knee flexion angle within the range of 120° to 130° in ACL femoral tunnel drilling and ALL drill orientations of axial 20° to coronal 0°, axial 30° to coronal 0°, and axial 30° to coronal 10° can be recommended as optimal conditions for creating tunnels while minimizing intertunnel collision in combined ACL and ALL reconstruction. Clinical relevance: This study provides practical guidelines for surgeons by identifying a safe range of knee flexion angles for ACL femoral tunnel creation using the transportal technique and optimal ALL femoral tunnel orientations. Applying these results may improve tunnel integrity, and enhance the success of combined ligament reconstructions.

PurposeThe aim of the current study was to objectify the rotational laxity after primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture and rerupture after ACL reconstruction by instrumented measurement. It was hypothesized that knees with recurrent instability feature a higher internal rotation laxity as compared to knees with a primary rupture of the native ACL.Study designCross-sectional study, Level of evidence III.MethodsIn a clinical cross-sectional study successive patients with primary ACL rupture and rerupture after ACL reconstruction were evaluated clinically and by instrumented measurement of the rotational and antero-posterior laxity with a validated instrument and the KT1000®, respectively. Clinical examination comprised IKDC 2000 forms, Lysholm Score, and Tegner Activity Scale. Power calculation and statistical analysis were performed (p value < 0.05).Results24 patients with primary ACL rupture and 23 patients with ACL rerupture were included. There was no significant side-to-side difference in anterior translation. A side-to side difference of internal rotational laxity ≥ 10° was found significantly more frequent in reruptures (53.6%) compared to primary ruptures (19.4%; p < 0.001). A highly significant relationship between the extent of the pivot-shift phenomenon and side-to-side difference of internal rotation laxity could be demonstrated (p < 0.001). IKDC 2000 subjective revealed significantly better scores in patients with primary ACL tear compared to patients with ACL rerupture (56.4 ± 7.8 vs. 50.8 ± 6.2; p = 0.01). Patients with primary ACL tears scored significantly better on the Tegner Activity Scale (p = 0.02). No significant differences were seen in the Lysholm Score (p = 0.78).ConclusionPatients with ACL rerupture feature significantly higher internal rotation laxity of the knee compared to primary ACL rupture. The extend of rotational laxity can be quantified by instrumented measurements. This can be valuable data for the indication of an anterolateral ligament reconstruction in ACL revision surgery.

Background: Collision risks between femoral tunnels during combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction have been reported. However, studies on collision risks between tibial tunnels and optimal ALL tibial tunnel orientation are lacking. Purpose: To analyze the optimal orientation of the ALL tibial tunnel to minimize collisions with the ACL tibial tunnel while preventing injury to the saphenous nerve in combined reconstruction. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and postoperative computed tomography (CT) images of patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction using the anteromedial portal technique were analyzed. Only patients with preoperative MRI scans including thin-cut images (<1 mm) were included for 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction. Patients who underwent ALL reconstruction or had poorly 3D-reconstructed essential structures were excluded to ensure accurate reproduction of bony attachments and landmarks associated with ALL. Bony structures of the knee joint, including the proximal tibia with the actual ACL tibial tunnel, were reconstructed from the postoperative CT scans. The greater saphenous vein (GSV), which runs together with the saphenous nerve, was reconstructed from the preoperative MRI and subsequently transferred to the CT model, maintaining the appropriate positional relationship. Twelve orientations of the ALL tunnel (at 10° intervals, ranging from 0° to 20° anteriorly and from 0° to 30° distally) were simulated with the final 3D model, starting from the ALL tibial footprint (midpoint between the Gerdy tubercle and the fibular head, 10 mm distal to the joint line), to measure the distances between the ALL tunnel trajectory and other structures (ACL tibial tunnel, GSV) by each orientation. Results: A total of 35 out of 304 patients were included in this study. An anteriorly oriented ALL tunnel decreased the minimum distance to the ACL tibial tunnel (MD-ACL) and increased minimum distance to the GSV (MD-GSV) (all P < .001). A distally oriented ALL tunnel increased MD-ACL and decreased MD-GSV (all P < .001). Optimal ALL tunnel orientation was 10° anterior to 30° distal (MD-ACL, 14.6 ± 4.0 mm; MD-GSV, 27.8 ± 12.4 mm) and 20° anterior to 30° distal (MD-ACL, 11.5 ± 3.6 mm; MD-GSV 43.6 ± 12.9 mm), considering both collisions with the ACL tunnel and the potential risk of injury to the saphenous nerve. Conclusion: The optimal orientations of the ALL tibial tunnel to avoid collision with the ACL tibial tunnel and prevent saphenous nerve injury are 10° anterior to 30° distal and 20° anterior to 30° distal for far-cortex drilling techniques, starting from the midpoint between the Gerdy tubercle and the fibular head, 10 mm distal to the joint line.

The anterolateral ligament (ALL) was first described in 1879 in the context of Segond fractures, which correlate with a 75–100% chance of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear or a 66–75% chance of a meniscal tear. The purpose of this paper is to provide an updated comprehensive review on the anterolateral ligament complex of the knee focusing on the: (1) anatomy of the ALL/ALC; (2) associated biomechanics/function; and (3) important surgical considerations in contemporary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic review of studies on ALL was conducted on Pubmed/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases (May 7th, 2020 to February 1st, 2022), with 20 studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were anatomical/biomechanical studies assessing ALL function, cadaveric and computer simulations, and comparative studies on surgical outcomes of ALLR (concomitant with ACL reconstruction). Eight studies were included and graded by MINOR and Newcastle–Ottawa scale to identify potential biases. The anatomy of the ALL is part of the anterolateral ligament complex (ALC), which includes the superficial/deep iliotibial band (including the Kaplan fiber system), iliopatellar band, ALL, and anterolateral capsule. Multiple biomechanical studies have characterized the ALC as a secondary passive stabilizer in resisting tibial internal rotation. Given the role of the ALC in resisting internal tibial rotation, lateral extra-articular procedures including ALL augmentation may be considered for chronic ACL tears, ACL revisions, and a high-grade pivot shift test. In the context of TKA, in the event of injury to the ALC, a more constrained implant or soft-tissue reconstruction may be necessary to restore appropriate knee stability.

Purpose Concomitant anterolateral ligament (ALL) injury is often observed in patients with an anterior cruciate ligament injury leading some to recommend concurrent ALL reconstruction. In ligament reconstruction, it is imperative to restore desirable ligament length changes to prevent stress on the graft. The purpose of this investigation is to identify the optimal femoral and tibial locations for fixation in ALL reconstruction. Methods 3D computerized tomography (CT) knee models were obtained from six fresh-frozen, unpaired, cadaveric human knees at 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, 40°, 90°, 110°, and 125°of knee flexion. Planar grids were projected onto the lateral knee. Isometry between each tibial and femoral grid point was calculated at each angle of flexion by the length change in reference to the length at 0° of knee flexion. The mean normalized length change over the range of motion was calculated for each combination of points at all angles of flexion were calculated. Results Fixation of the ALL to the lateral femoral epicondyle or 5 mm anterior to the epicondyle with tibial fixation on the posteroinferior aspect of the tibial condyle (14–21 mm posterior to Gerdy’s tubercle and 13–20 mm below the joint line) provided the lowest average length change for all possible ALL tibial insertion points. Minimal length change for all femoral fixation locations occurred from 20° to 40° of flexion, which identifies the angle of flexion where graft tensioning should occur intraoperatively. Conclusion With the use of 3D reconstructed models of knee-CT scans, we observed that there was no ALL fixation point that was truly isometric throughout range of motion. Fixation of the anterolateral ligament on the lateral femoral epicondyle or anterior to the lateral femoral epicondyle and on the inferoposterior aspect of the tibial condyle restores isometry. Additionally, minimal length change was observed between 20° and 40° of flexion, which is the most appropriate range of knee flexion to tension the graft. Reproducing isometry reduces stress on the graft, which minimizes the risk of graft failure.

The structure and function of the anterolateral complex (ALC) of the knee has created much controversy since the ‘re-discovery’ of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) and its proposed role in aiding control of anterolateral rotatory laxity in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injured knee. A group of surgeons and researchers prominent in the field gathered to produce consensus as to the anatomy and biomechanical properties of the ALC. The evidence for and against utilisation of ALC reconstruction was also discussed, generating a number of consensus statements by following a modified Delphi process. Key points include that the ALC consists of the superficial and deep aspects of the iliotibial tract with its Kaplan fibre attachments on the distal femur, along with the ALL, a capsular structure within the anterolateral capsule. A number of structures attach to the area of the Segond fracture including the capsule-osseous layer of the iliotibial band, the ALL and the anterior arm of the short head of biceps, and hence it is not clear which is responsible for this lesion. The ALC functions to provide anterolateral rotatory stability as a secondary stabiliser to the ACL. Whilst biomechanical studies have shown that these structures play an important role in controlling stability at the time of ACL reconstruction, the optimal surgical procedure has not yet been defined clinically. Concern remains that these procedures may cause constraint of motion, yet no clinical studies have demonstrated an increased risk of osteoarthritis development. Furthermore, clinical evidence is currently lacking to support clear indications for lateral extra-articular procedures as an augmentation to ACL reconstruction. The resulting statements and scientific rationale aim to inform readers on the most current thinking and identify areas of needed basic science and clinical research to help improve patient outcomes following ACL injury and subsequent reconstruction. Level of evidence V.