The anatomy of the antero-lateral corner (ALC) has been the topic of recent interest, as evidenced by the increasing number of publications. Knowledge needs to be improved amongst clinicians regarding the anatomy and biomechanical function of this vital structure and its implications on the rotational stability of the knee. There has yet to be a consensus on the role of surgical procedures and their indications for addressing the instability associated with the injury to these structures. Through this article, the authors have tried to outline the existing literature regarding Anterolateral knee instability, the associated structures, and the management of its injuries, emphasising the role of the anterolateral capsule and reconstructive procedures in combined ligamentous knee injuries.

The knowledge on the anatomy, function and biomechanics and the role of surgical procedures on the anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee is still controversial. Only a few papers have examined the ALL in children. The aim of this review is to analyze all the available literature about ALL in the pediatric population. Following the PRISMA criteria, the literature was systematically reviewed, examining all the articles about ALL in pediatric patients. Eight articles were involved in this study. Five cadaveric studies, two diagnostic studies, and one cross-sectional study were found. The identification of the ALL is not always possible in diagnostic studies using magnetic resonance (MRI) or in dissecting specimens. A high variability in the presence of the ligament and in its origin and insertion were found among the studies. It is more difficult to identify the ligament in younger patients than in older children, suggesting that its presence may develop at some point during the growth. Further studies are needed for a detailed knowledge of the ALL.

To perform an updated systematic review of the anatomy, biomechanics, function of the anterolateral ligament (ALL), and the clinical outcomes of anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) when performed in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

A systematic search of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase with the search phrase anterolateral ligament for articles published from February 2017 to May 2020. Inclusion criteria included studies that evaluated the anatomy, function, or biomechanics of the ALL; surgical technique articles on ALLR; clinical articles reporting outcomes of ALLR; studies published in English; and full-text articles. Exclusion criteria included studies published before February 2017. A subjective synthesis was performed, in which ranges were reported, and individual study data were presented in forest plots.

Overall, 40 articles were included in this systematic review, with 11 articles describing ALL anatomy, 14 articles analyzing ALL function and biomechanics, 7 articles discussing the surgical technique of combined ACLR and ALLR (ACLR/ALLR), and 8 articles describing the clinical outcomes of ACLR/ALLR. The addition of ALLR in combination with ACLR (ACLR+) results in lower graft failure rates for ACLR/ALLR (0.0%-15.7%) when compared with isolated ACLR (I-ACLR) patients (7.4%-21.7%). Three of 5 studies using the Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score, 2 of 5 studies using the Lysholm score, and 1 of 2 studies using the Tegner score reported significantly better scores at latest follow-up among ACLR+ patients compared with I-ACLR (P < .05).

The ALL acts as a secondary stabilizer to the anterior cruciate ligament and helps resist internal knee rotation and anterior tibial translation. Based on the current literature, combined ACLR with ALLR may result in lower graft failure rates and improved patient-reported outcomes when compared with I-ACLR in patients with specific indications, although several studies have shown equivalent outcomes between these 2 cohorts.

The contents of this review provide great insight for orthopaedic surgeons who are performing ACLR and considering additional procedures to increase overall knee stability and decrease likeliness for re-rupture. The postoperative functional and clinical outcomes shown in patients undergoing ACLR+ compared with I-ACLR should be given proper consideration when evaluating available treatment courses.

The anatomy, function, and existence of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) is still hotly debated and a controversial topic. Currently both basic biomechanical and clinical studies are not providing sufficient and strong evidence to either support or refute that the ALL plays an important role for knee stability. One could argue that stability is provided by the anterolateral complex, including the iliotibial band, Kaplan fibers, and the anterolateral capsule, which may contain a structure called the ALL. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is routinely performed in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, but unfortunately ALL injuries cannot be reliably diagnosed in patients with concomitant ACL tears. When dividing ALL injuries into high and low grade using preoperative MRI and investigating clinical outcomes after double-bundle ACL reconstruction, patients with high-grade injuries have inferior outcomes and a significantly greater revision rates. However, the limitations of this research reduce the validity of these conclusions: high rate of loss to follow-up above accepted standard, unequal size of their study groups, fragility index of zero, the inaccuracy of diagnosing ALL injuries in the presence of ACL tears on MRI, and the dilemma with randomly classifying high- and low-grade ALL injury based on MRI.

The pivot-shift test is used to assess for rotatory knee laxity in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee and ACL-reconstructed knee; however, the pivot shift uses a subjective grading system that is limited by variability between examiners. Consequently, quantified pivot shift (QPS) test software (PIVOT iPad application) has been developed and validated to measure the magnitude of rotatory knee laxity during the positive pivot-shift test.

To employ intraoperative QPS (iQPS) to assess for differences in residual rotatory knee laxity after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) versus ACLR augmented with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (ACLR + LET), and to employ iQPS to determine if ACLR and/or ACLR + LET result in overconstrained knee kinematics when compared with the contralateral knee.

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

iQPS was performed in 20 patients by a single surgeon on both the operative and contralateral knees before ACLR. ACLR was augmented with a LET if the lateral compartment tibial translation measured during QPS was greater than or equal to double the amount of lateral tibial compartment translation measured for the contralateral knee. After each reconstruction (ACLR or ACLR + LET), iQPS measurements were performed. iQPS data were compared with the preoperative QPS measurements of the operative and contralateral knees. Postoperative iQPS data were compared with both the preoperative QPS measurements of the operative and contralateral knees with paired samples t tests. Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher exact test.

The mean age in the cohort was 17.3 years (range, 15-24 years). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the proportion of male patients (ACLR: 5 male, 5 female vs ACLR + LET: 4 male, 6 female) or age (ACLR: 17.7 ± 3.3 years; 95% CI, 15.4-24.0 vs ACLR + LET: 16.8 ± 2.8 years, 95% CI, 14.8-22.0; P = .999). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to preoperative QPS performed during examination under anesthesia (ACLR: 4.7 ± 2.0 mm; 95% CI, 3.3-6.1 vs ACLR + LET: 3.6 ± 1.8 mm; 95% CI, 2.3-4.9; P = .2). Both ACLR and ACLR + LET resulted in significant decreases in rotatory knee laxity when compared with preoperative QPS measurements (ACLR: -3.4 ± 1.7 mm; 95% CI, -4.6 to -2.2; P < .001: ACLR + LET: -2.6 ± 1.9 mm; 95% CI, -3.9 to -1.3; P < .002). Moreover, when compared with isolated ACLR, ACLR + LET did not result in a significantly smaller magnitude of change in iQPS between the pre- and postoperative states (P = .3).

Both ACLR and ACLR + LET resulted in significant decreases in rotatory knee laxity. The augmentation of ACLR with LET did not change the constraint of the knee with respect to lateral compartment translation as measured during iQPS.

There is considerable debate regarding the function of anterolateral knee structures, including the anterolateral ligament (ALL) and anterolateral capsule, as knee stabilizers in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injured knees. Medial meniscus posterior horn (MMPH) injuries have also been associated with increased knee laxity in ACL injured knees. The purpose of this cadaveric biomechanical study was to compare the effects of the anterolateral complex (ALC) injury and meniscectomy of MMPH on knee laxity in ACL injured knees.

ALC injury would have a greater effect on internal rotational laxity in ACL-injured knee than meniscectomy of MMPH.

Matched-pair 10 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees underwent biomechanical evaluation of knee laxity. After testing the intact knee and ACL sectioned knee (ACL-) in matched-pair 10 fresh-frozen cadaveric knees, two groups were established: an ALC sectioning (ACL-/ALC-) group (n=5) and a MMPH meniscectomy (ACL-/MMPH-) group (n=5). Knee laxity was measured in terms of internal-external rotation, anterior-posterior translation, and varus-valgus angulation for each condition at knee flexion angles of 0°, 30°, 60° and 90°.

After the additional sectioning of the ALC (ACL-/ALC-), the mean internal rotation at 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° of knee flexion showed the greater internal rotation laxity compared than intact knee (p=0.020, 0.011, 0.005 and<0.001). It also significantly increased anterior translation from ACL- at 30° and 60° (p=0.011 and 0.005). In contrast, additional meniscectomy of the MMPH (ACL-/MMPH-) significantly increased external rotation laxity compared to intact knee (p=0.021, 0.018 and 0.024) and ACL- (p=0.037, 0.011 and 0.025) at 30°, 60° and 90°. ACL-/MMPH- also resulted in significantly increased anterior translation from ACL- at 30°, 60° and 90° (p=0.004, 0.008 and 0.002).

In conclusion, the anterolateral complex, which include the ALL and anterolateral capsule, may play an important role in stabilizing the knee against internal rotation and anterior translation, while the MMPH may contribute to resisting external rotation and anterior translation stability in ACL-injured knee.

II, controlled laboratory study.

The anterolateral complex (ALC) of the knee comprises multiple layers, with continued debate on the identity and function of the structures of the ALC. The Segond fracture, long considered pathognomonic of an anterior cruciate ligament injury, has now been shown to have several attachments to soft tissues of the ALC. To the extent that a Segond fracture, or injury to the ALC more broadly, increases knee rotatory instability in vivo is a question of ongoing investigation. By extension, it remains uncertain whether an untreated Segond fracture adversely affects outcomes and therefore warrants consideration for operative intervention. Prospective randomized studies of anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with or without concomitant treatment of Segond fractures are needed to more definitively answer these questions.