Search

Background: Surgical techniques and associated outcomes in treating acute and chronic extra-articular ligament knee injuries are in evolution, and there is question as to whether repair or reconstruction is optimal. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the subsequent surgery rate between surgical repair versus reconstruction for all extra-articular ligament injuries of the knee utilizing a large database. Our hypothesis was that overall surgical repair of both lateral and medial extra-articular knee injuries would have a higher revision rate than those treated by reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The PearlDiver Mariner data set (2010-2019), with 122 million patients, was utilized to generate 2 patient cohorts: those who underwent surgical repair and those who underwent surgical reconstruction of a knee extra-articular ligament injury. All patients had a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Rates of concomitant or subsequent cruciate ligament reconstruction and rates of secondary procedures were assessed and compared between the 2 cohorts. Results: In total, 3563 patients were identified: extra-articular ligament reconstruction was performed for 2405 (67.5%), and repair was performed for 1158 (32.5%). Cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed for 986 (27.7%), of which 888 of 986 (90.1%) were performed on the same day as their extra-articular ligament procedure. At 2-year follow-up, the reconstruction cohort had higher rates of revision surgery compared with the repair cohort (8.2% vs 2.5%; P <.001). Conclusion: Using a large national database, knee extra-articular ligamentous reconstructions (those on both the lateral and the medial side) had a 3.3 times higher rate of revision surgery compared with repair at 2-year follow-up. Further study is needed to investigate the causes leading to revision surgery and to determine the optimal surgical treatment for both medial and lateral extra-articular knee ligament injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]