Evidence Hub

Epidemiology of Combined Injuries of the Secondary Stabilizers in ACL-Deficient Knees: Medial Meniscal Ramp Lesion, Lateral Meniscus Root Tear, and ALL Tear: A Prospective Case Series of 602 Patients With ACL Tears From the SANTI Study Group

G. Gracia, M. Cavaignac, Vincent Marot, Dany Mouarbes, P. Laumonerie, E. Cavaignac

American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2022

602 participants · 52 citations

Abstract

Background: Medial meniscal ramp lesion (MMRL), lateral meniscus root tear (LMRT), and anterolateral ligament (ALL) tear are individual injuries that have been described in patients who have an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. However, the prevalence of these lesions and their combination has not been defined. Purposes: To define the individual and combined prevalence of MMRL, LMRT, and ALL tears in a case series of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction and to identify the risk factors for combined injuries. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients aged >15 years undergoing primary ACL reconstruction between January 2019 and June 2021 were enrolled in the study. A preoperative ultrasound scan was performed to look for an ALL tear. The presence of MMRL and LMRT was determined during a standardized arthroscopy exploration. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the individual effect of patient variables on the risk of associated single, dual, triad, or tetrad injuries (MMRL, LMRT, ALL, ACL), represented by an adjusted odds ratio. Results: The case series consisted of 602 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction. An isolated ACL injury was present in 147 patients (24%). A dual injury was detected in 34 patients (6%) who had ACL-MMRL, 16 (2.65%) who had ACL-LMRT, and 265 (44%) who had ACL-ALL. A triad injury was detected in 80 patients (13.28%) who had ACL-ALL-MMRL, 36 (6%) who had ACL-ALL-LMRT, and 3…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 602 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free