Clinical and mechanical outcomes in isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction vs additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstruction

Table 1 Critical appraisal of randomised control trials, using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for randomised control trials, n = 10

Ref.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4a	Q4b	Q4c	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11
Chiba et al[23]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Getgood et al[12]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Hamido et al[39]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ibrahim et al[40]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Mogoş et al[24]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Porter et al[41]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sonnery-Cottet et al[25]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Stensbirk et al[42]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Trichine et al[43]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Vadalà et al[44]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Table 2 Critical appraisal of cohort studies, using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for cohort studies, n = 13: Questions 7, 8 and 12 were left out of the table due to the fact they are not yes/no questions

Ref.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5a	Q5b	Q6a	Q6b	Q9	Q10	Q11
Ahn et al[45]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Can’t tell	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Dejour et al[46]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Erden et al[47]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ferretti et al[33]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Giraud et al[48]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Can’t tell	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Goncharov et al[49]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Lee et al[50]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Can’t tell	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mahmoud et al[11]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rowan et al[51]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sonnery-Cottet et al[52]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sonnery-Cottet et al[53]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sonnery-Cottet et al[36]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ventura et al[54]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Can’t tell	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Table 3 Characteristics of the studies included in the review, n = 24

Study characteristic	n(%)
Study design
Randomised controlled trial	10 (42)
Prospective cohort study	5 (21)
Retrospective cohort study	6 (25)
Matched cohort study	2 (8)
Case control study	1 (4)
Country of origin
France	6 (25)
Italy	4 (17)
Australia	2 (8)
South Korea	2 (8)
United States	1 (4)
Kuwait	2 (8)
Turkey	1 (4)
United Kingdom	1 (4)
Brazil	1 (4)
Russia	1 (4)
Canada	1 (4)
Denmark	1 (4)
Algeria	1 (4)
Year published
2006	1 (4)
2012	1 (4)
2013	1 (4)
2014	2 (8)
2016	1 (4)
2017	2 (8)
2018	1 (8)
2019	4 (17)
2020	4 (17)
2021	7 (29)
Number of patients
< 50	2 (8)
50-100	10 (42)
100-250	8 (33)
250-500	2 (8)
> 500	2 (8)
Mean follow-up time
1-12 mo	2 (8)
13 -24 mo	6 (25)
25-36 mo	4 (17)
37-60 mo	7 (29)
61-120 mo	4 (17)
> 120 mo	1 (4)
Type of AEAP
LET	13 (54)
ALLR	11 (46)

AEAP: Anterolateral extra articular procedures; LET: Lateral extra articular tenodesis; ALLR: Anterolateral ligament reconstruction.

Table 4 Main characteristics of studies included in this systematic review, n = 24

Ref.	Design of study	AEAP used	Number of patients involved	Mean follow up	Outcome measures used	Technique favoured
Ahn et al[45]	Retrospective cohort study	LET	171	49.7 ± 5.7 mo	IKDC, KL grade, graft maturation score and revision rates	ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone
Chiba et al[23]	RCT	LET	18	12 mo	Anterior tibial translation, KOOS, tibial rotation relative to the femur	ACLR with LET is not superior to ACLR alone
Dejour et al[46]	Prospective cohort study	LET	75	25 mo	Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, pivot shift grading	ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone
Erden et al[47]	Retrospective cohort study	ALLR	63	24 mo	Cincinnati knee score, IKDC, Lysholm scores, graft rupture rate, anterior tibial translation, pivot shift test	ACLR with ALLR is not superior to ACLR alone
Ferretti et al[33]	Retrospective cohort study	LET	140	120 mo	Lysholm score, IKDC, Tegner score, anterior tibial translation	ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone
Getgood et al[12]	RCT	LET	618	24 mo	P4, KOOS, Marx Activity Rating scale, IKDC, ACL QOL	ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone
Giraud et al[48]	Prospective cohort study	LET	63	84 mo	IKDC, anterior tibial translation, radiological medial and lateral compartment laxity	ACLR with LET is not superior to ACLR alone
Goncharov et al[49]	Prospective cohort study	ALLR	50	24 mo	Tegner Lysholm score, IKDC, Lachmann test, Pivot shift test	ACLR with ALLR is not superior to ACLR alone
Hamido et al[39]	RCT	ALLR	107	60 mo	IKDC, anterior tibial translation, Tegner score, Lysholm score	ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone
Helito et al[55]	Case control study	ALLR	90	29.6 ± 6.2 mo for group 1; 28.1 ± mo for group 2	Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner score Pivot shift test, rupture rates	ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone
Ibrahim et al[40]	RCT	ALLR	103	27 mo	Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm score, Tegner score, Pivot shift test	ACLR with ALLR is not superior to ACLR alone
Lee et al[50]	Retrospective cohort study	ALLR	87	36 mo	ACL-RSI, Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm score, Tegner score	ACLR with ALLR is not superior to ACLR alone
Mahmoud et al[11]	Matched cohort study	LET	144	120 mo	IKDC, Lysholm score, OKS, Tegner score	ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone
Mogoş et al[24]	RCT	ALLR	57	12 mo	IKDC, Lysholm score, Pivot shift test, Rolimeter test, Tegner score	ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone
Porter et al[41]	RCT	LET	55	24 mo	IKDC, Lysholm score, KOOS, Tegner score	ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone
Rowan et al[51]	Prospective cohort study	LET	273	52 mo	Lysholm score, Tegner score	ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone
Sonnery-Cottet et al[52]	Prospective cohort study	ALLR	502	38.4 ± 8.5 mo	IKDC, Lysholm score, Side to side laxity, Tegner score	ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone
Sonnery-Cottet et al[53]	Retrospective cohort study	ALLR	383	37.4 mo	Lysholm score, Side to side laxity, Tegner score	ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone
Sonnery-Cottet et al[25]	RCT	ALLR	224	12.3 ± 1.9 mo	IKDC, Lysholm score, KOOS, Range of motion, Tegner score	ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone
Sonnery-Cottet et al[36]	Matched cohort study	ALLR	172	104.33 ± 3.74 mo	IKDC, Lysholm score, KOOS, Side to side laxity, Tegner score	ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone
Stensbirk et al[42]	RCT	LET	60	180 mo	AKP questionnaire, Lysholm score, Tegner score	ACLR with LET is not superior to ACLR alone
Trichine et al[43]	Single blinded RCT	LET	120	24 mo	IKDC, Objective laxity	Inconclusive
Vadalà et al[44]	RCT	LET	60	44.6 mo	Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm score, Tegner score, VAS	ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR only
Ventura et al[54]	Retrospective cohort study	LET	24	54 mo	Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm score, Tegner score	ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone

AEAP: Anterolateral extra articular procedures; ACL-RSI: Anterior cruciate ligament – return to sport after injury; ALLR: Anterolateral ligament reconstruction; AKP: Anterior knee pain; IKDC: International Knee Documentation Committee; KOOS: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; LET: Lateral extra articular tenodesis; OKS: Oxford Knee Score; RCT: Randomised controlled trial; VAS: Visual analogue scale.