KSSTA - 2026-09-07 - Journal Article; Review
Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction following failure of combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with lateral extra-articular procedures: A scoping review.
Duru DO, O'Brien CC, Bouchard MD, Vivekanantha P, Hantouly A, de Sa D, Ayeni OR, Kay J
Topics
Key Takeaway
Across 9 included studies, only 23 of 594 patients were explicitly identified as undergoing revision ACLR after failed combined ACLR with a lateral extra-articular procedure, revealing a critical evidence gap in this increasingly common clinical scenario.
Summary Depth
Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.
Summary
This scoping review mapped the literature on revision ACLR following failure of combined ACLR with LEAPs (LET or ALLR), identifying 9 eligible studies via MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed through February 2026. Only 3 studies described detailed revision strategies, and clinical outcome data were limited to 2 case reports demonstrating short-term satisfactory stability. Revision strategies were heterogeneous across graft selection and LEAP management, with no comparative outcome data available.
Key Limitation
The 23 explicitly identified revision cases are embedded within heterogeneous primary and revision ACLR cohorts, precluding any quantitative synthesis or subgroup analysis of outcomes specific to failed combined ACLR with LEAP.
Original Abstract
PURPOSE
The purpose of this scoping review was to map the existing literature describing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) following failure of combined ACLR with lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAPs), characterize reported surgical strategies, summarize available clinical outcomes and identify gaps in the current evidence base.
METHODS
A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed were searched from inception to February 2026. Eligible studies included technical notes and clinical studies describing revision of failed combined ACLR with LEAPs, including lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) or anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR). Studies were included irrespective of outcome reporting, provided revision strategies were described. Single-revision or re-revision cases and adult and paediatric populations were included. Review articles, editorials and letters were excluded. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. Three studies described detailed revision strategies, including single-stage revision ACLR with ALLR, double-bundle revision ACLR with LET preservation and all-epiphyseal revision ACLR following failed LET. Six clinical studies included 594 patients within broader primary or revision ACLR cohorts, of whom 23 were explicitly identified as undergoing revision or re-revision following failure of a combined ACLR with LEAP. Revision strategies were heterogeneous in graft selection and management of the LEAP, including LET preservation, LET revision or conversion to ALLR. Clinical outcomes were reported in two case reports, both demonstrating satisfactory short-term stability and functional outcomes following revision ACLR with LET preservation.
CONCLUSIONS
The current literature on the revision of failed combined ACLR with LEAPs is limited and heterogeneous. Revision strategies vary widely, and reporting of both technique and clinical outcomes is inconsistent. Based on the limited evidence and expert opinion, revision ACLR in this context should be individualized according to surgeon experience and patient-specific factors, such as prior ACL graft harvest, tunnel interactions and the status of the prior LEAP.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level V.