This annotation considers the place of extra-articular reconstruction in the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency. Extra-articular reconstruction has been employed over the last century to address ACL deficiency. However, the technique has not gained favour, primarily due to residual instability and the subsequent development of degenerative changes in the lateral compartment of the knee. Thus intra-articular reconstruction has become the technique of choice. However, intra-articular reconstruction does not restore normal knee kinematics. Some authors have recommended extra-articular reconstruction in conjunction with an intra-articular technique. . The anatomy and biomechanics of the anterolateral structures of the knee remain largely undetermined. Further studies to establish the structure and function of the anterolateral structures may lead to more anatomical extra-articular reconstruction techniques that supplement intra-articular reconstruction. This might reduce residual pivot shift after an intra-articular reconstruction and thus improve the post-operative kinematics of the knee.

Purpose of the study: Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has become a common procedure. We compared two randomized series: intra-articular (Kenneth-Jones) versus intra- and extra-articular (MacInJones). Material and methods: From January 1995 through March 1998, 73 knees were treated surgically for differential medial laxity measured at 7 to 12 mm on passive stress x-rays in 20° flexion. Group 1 (ACL reconstruction alone) included 34 patients (aged 27.1±7.5 years). Group 2 (ACL reconstruction plus extra-articular plasty) included 29 patients (aged 28.5±12 years). Function was scored 72% in group 1 and 68% in group 2 at mean seven years follow-up (102 and 93 months follow-up respectively). Anterior laxity was measured radiographically and with KT-1000 and the position of the tunnels was assessed according to Aglietti. Results: According to the IKDC, functional outcome was 83.9±3.1 in group 1 and 83.3±3.6 in group 2. The overall IKDC classification was 0A, 57.8% B, 26.3% C, and 15.7% D for group 1 and 58% A, 52.9% B, 29.4% C, and 11.7% D for group 2. The pivot-shift test was negative in 61.1% of group 1 knees (27.7% grade 1 and 11.1% grade 2) and negative in 83.3% of group 2 knees (16.6% grade 1). In group 1, the radiological drawer showed 46.09% improvement in the differential laxity for the medial compartment and 41% for lateral compartment. In group 2 the corresponding improvements were 44.8% and 44.6%. There was no difference in tunnel position between the two groups. Discussion: The two-year results of this series did not provide any evidence favoring a clear advantage of complementary lateral plasty. At seven years follow-up, the pivot-shift test appeared to favor associated lateral plasty (p=0.09), but with no significant difference in laxity for the two compartments. Conclusion: Anterior laxity was only incompletely controlled by both reconstruction techniques. In this context of relatively limited laxity (7–12 mm initially), at seven years follow-up there was no certain advantage of complementary lateral extra-articular plasty in combination with ACL reconstruction