Search for a command to run...
To provide a comprehensive overview of the indications for lateral extra-articular tenodesis in addition to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), followed by a discussion on the existing techniques with their perceived advantages and disadvantages. Recent evidence has shifted lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) from a routine “add-on” to a selective adjunct for patients at higher risk of residual rotatory instability and ACL graft failure after isolated ACLR. Level I clinical evidence suggests that adding an iliotibial (ITB) – based LET can meaningfully reduce graft rupture rates while improving control of pivot shift – type instability. The 2025 International Consensus on lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAPs) supports LET/anterolateral augmentation particularly for revision ACLR, high-grade pivot shift, generalized laxity or hyperextension/recurvatum, and young athletes returning to pivoting/contact sports. The consensus also mentions that modern LEAPs have low complication rates, do not typically require altered rehabilitation, and have not shown a consistent signal for increased lateral compartment osteoarthritis when contemporary technique principles are followed. Finally, despite the variety of described constructs (modified Lemaire variants, other ITB-based tenodeses, and anatomic ALL reconstruction), current literature does not demonstrate a single universally superior technique. Instead, success appears to be linked to correct patient selection, adherence to key technical principles (appropriate graft routing & low-tension fixation), and age or skeletal – maturity – appropriate modifications. When applied selectively in high-risk patients, adding a lateral extra-articular tenodesis to ACL reconstruction can improve rotational control and reduce re-injury, but current evidence does not support a single universally superior LET construct. Optimal results depend on appropriate indications, careful technique, and tailoring the approach to patient factors such as age, sport demands, laxity profile, and skeletal maturity.
Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Volume 19, Issue 1