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.

Participation in professional sports and having a combined lateral tenodesis are risk factors for the development of infection after ACL reconstruction. We hypothesize that professional athletes may be part of a specific group of patients at higher risk of infection after ACL reconstruction.

No abstract

No abstract

Figure 3. Two-year follow-up MRI showing ACL ganglion cyst with a significant reduction in size (anteroposterior dimension, 5.4 mm). (A) Sagittal, (B) coronal, and (C) axial views.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess whether harvesting of two hamstring tendons (semitendinosus and gracilis) has the same rate of nerve injury as harvesting of the semitendinosus tendon alone, used as a triple graft.MethodsChanges in sensitivity relating to injury of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve were evaluated in 110 patients six months after they underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring tendons. They were divided into two groups: one in which only the semitendinosus was used and the other, the semitendinosus and gracilis.ResultsThe group in which only the semitendinosus was used as a graft presented a nerve injury rate of 36.1%. In the group in which the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons were used, 58.1% of the patients presented altered sensitivity. In the general assessment on all the patients, the nerve injury rate was 50.9%.ConclusionHarvesting the semitendinosus alone and using it in triple form is a viable option for ACL reconstruction and may give rise to fewer nerve injuries relating to branches of the saphenous nerve.

ObjectiveTo compare the widening of bone tunnels between poly-etheretherketone (PEEK), absorbable polylactic acid DL (PLDL) and tricalcium phosphate (TCP) interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.MethodsThree groups of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with at least 1 year of follow-up using the out-in drilling technique and hamstring as a graft were assessed. The patients were divided according to the type of interference screw used (PEEK, PLDL and TCP). Computed tomography (CT) was performed to measure the greatest femoral and tibial tunnel widening regarding to the initial tunnel, and then it was compared between groups.ResultsMean widening in group 1 (PEEK) was 39.56% (SD 16%) in the femoral tunnel and 33.65% (SD 20%) in the tibia. In group 2 (PLDL) mean widening was 48.43% in the femoral tunnel (SD 18%) and 35.24% (SD 13%) in the tibial tunnel. In group 3 (TCP) mean widening was 44.51% in the femur (SD 14%) and 36.83% in the tibia (SD 14%). The comparison between groups (PLDL-PEEK, PLDL-TCP, PEEK-TCP) shows no statistically significant difference.ConclusionBone tunnel enlargement values after ACL reconstruction with the use of different types of materials (bioinert and biomaterials) of interference screws (PEEK, PLDL and TCP) were similar. Level of Evidence III, Comparative retrospective study.

Objective: To compare ACL reconstruction with anatomical positioning of the tunnels using the hamstring or patellar tendons. Methods: We prospectively evaluated 52 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using the Chambat's technique, with anatomical positioning of the tunnels drilled outside in. They were divided into group A, with 27 patients, using the patellar tendon as a graft, and group B, with 25 patients, using the hamstring. Results: In group A 26 patients were very satisfied or satisfied and 1 unhappy, in group B. 25 patients were very satisfied or satisfied with the procedure (p = 0.990). According to the Lysholm scale, group A had a mean score of 96.11 and group B, 95.32 (p=0.594). In relation to preoperative IKDC, 100% of the patients in group A and 92% of those in group B were IKDC C or D (p = 0.221); in the assessment with a minimum of two-year follow-up, 96% of group A and 92% of group B were IKDC A or B (p = 0.256). The Lachman test, pivot shift, return to sports activities, and the comparative difference in anterior translation (RolimeterTM) also showed no statistically significant difference. In group A, 5 patients (18.5%) were unable to kneel on a hard surface, whereas no patient in group B had this complaint. Conclusion: The anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction presents similar results using the hamstring or patellar tendon with anatomical positioning of the tunnels. Drilling the femoral tunnel outside in is a reproducible and accurate option in the correct placement the femoral tunnel.