Ten‐year outcomes of combined ACLR and lateral extra‐articular tenodesis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluates long-term outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET), including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), failure rates, objective knee scores and radiographic osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, Embase and Emcare was conducted until April 2025. Studies were eligible if they reported ≥10-year outcomes following combined ACLR and LET in adults. Exclusion criteria included cadaveric, biomechanical, paediatric and non-English studies. Methodological quality was assessed using Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool (RoB 2) for randomized trials and methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) for non-randomized studies. Narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Eleven studies (n = 603) were included, with a mean follow-up of 15.8 years (standard deviation [SD] 5.9). Graft failure rates ranged from 0% to 19.5%, with lower rates in studies using stricter revision-based definitions. LET was associated with lower failure and instability rates compared to isolated ACLR in three studies. Radiographic OA findings were mixed: some reported increased lateral OA (notably with bone-patellar tendon-bone [BTB] grafts), while others suggested protective effects, especially in patients with hamstring grafts and prior meniscectomy. Lysholm scores consistently exceeded 85, while Tegner activity levels declined modestly. International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) scores were favourable, and most patients achieved IKDC objective Grade A or B. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrated that ACLR augmented with LET provided durable long-term outcomes, including high rates of subjective satisfaction and objective stability, without being consistently associated with increased radiographic OA or unacceptable failure rates. However, heterogeneity in study design, surgical technique and outcome reporting limits definitive conclusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".