Does anterolateral ligament internal bracing improve the outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with generalized joint hypermobility?

Toker M. B., Erden T., TOPRAK A., Taser O. F.

ULUSAL TRAVMA VE ACIL CERRAHI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF TRAUMA & EMERGENCY SURGERY, vol.28, no.3, pp.320-327, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 28 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.14744/tjtes.2021.39998
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Page Numbers: pp.320-327
  • Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, anterolateral ligament, augmentation, internal brace, knee instability, suture tape, SUTURE TAPE, LAXITY, INJURY, RISK, STABILITY, ANATOMY, RUPTURE, REPAIR
  • Bezmialem Vakıf University Affiliated: Yes


BACKGROUND: Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and ACL graft failure and is considered an indication for anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare functional outcomes, rupture rates, and residual instability in patients with GJH undergoing isolated ACL reconstruction or combined ACL reconstruction and ALL augmentation with internal bracing (ALL-IB). METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with GJH and unilateral ACL injury were randomly assigned to undergo either isolated ACL reconstruction (Group 1) or combined ACL reconstruction and ALL-IB (Group 2). The patients were evaluated pre-and postoperatively; their medical histories; physical examination results; anterior knee translation, as measured using the KT-1000 arthrometer; and scores of validated knee assessments were recorded. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 2 consisted of 37 and 31 patients, respectively. The mean follow-up was 30.1 +/- 4.1 and 28.1 +/- 2.9 months, respectively. In the final evaluation, the patients in Group 2 showed better rotational stability, as evaluated by the pivot-shift test (p=0.013); better anteroposterior stability, as evaluated by KT-1000 arthrometry (p=0.001); similar function (p=0.14 for the Lysholm, p=0.11 for the Cincinnati, and p=0.19 for the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score); and failure rate (p=0.41). CONCLUSION: The functional outcomes were similar between the groups. The stability outcomes after combined ACL and ALLIB were better than those after isolated ACL reconstruction in patients with GJH. However, the technique and its results need to be validated in larger patient series and prospective randomized controlled trials.