Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41922887›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2026

Extra-articular Tenodesis for ACL Reconstruction: Who Needs it and is there a Superior Technique?

Enejd Veizi, Lucy Oliver-Welsh, Christos Koutserimpas, Emrah Imat, Alan Getgood

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Enejd VeiziDepartment of Surgery, Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar. dr.nad89@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1289-4959
Lucy Oliver-WelshBrisbane Orthopaedic & Sports Medicine Centre, Brisbane Private Hospital, Spring Hill, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6289-2783
Christos KoutserimpasOrthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Lyon University Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1398-9626
Emrah ImatDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Etlik City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-8645-0901
Alan GetgoodFIFA Medical Centre of Excellence, Fortius Clinic, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4731-4333

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo 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

findingsRecent 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.

Indexed as

Anterior cruciate ligamentAnterolateral complexArthroscopyKneeLateral extra-articular tenodesisLigament reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID41922887
PMCPMC13043991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.