• Article highlight
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article History

Received : 01-06-2021

Accepted : 16-08-2021

Available online : 26-08-2021



Article Metrics




Downlaod Files

   


Article Access statistics

Viewed: 101

PDF Downloaded: 68


Georgios, Georgios, Konstantinos, Aliki, and Ververidis: The role of the anterolateral ligament in the rotation stability of the knee


Introduction

Anterolateral ligament (ALL) is a well known ligament; initial references go back to the year 1879, when Dr. P. Segond1 has described the well known Segond fracture, which is a result of high force internal rotation of the knee. Moreover, he described the existence of a “pearly, resistant, fibrous band” posterior to the Gerdy’s tubercle. Inspired by his work, more than a century later Dr. S. Claes et al,2 in 2013 based on research done in 41 unpaired knees he proved the existence of this anatomical structure.

The purpose of the present study was to describe the continuous efforts to delineate the complexity of the anatomy and the embiomechanics of the anterolateral ligament. In addition, aim to present the histological characteristics of the anterolateral ligament and its similarities to any other ligament.

Review Material

By a thorough literature review in Pubmed, Embase and Google Scholar databases we summarized 33 articles between January 2012 to December 2018 focusing on the anatomy of the ALL, 5 articles between the years 2013 and 2016 looking into the embiomechanics of the ALL and 4 articles from 2018 to 2019 examining the surgical indications for its reconstruction.

Key words that have been utilized in these articles included: Anatomy of the ALL, Embiomechanics of the ALL and Surgical indications of ALL reconstruction. Articles that have been written in English have only been utilized. Biochemical and intra-operative data, but also review articles have been excluded.

Results

Anatomy

ALL has 3 adhesions: 1) the femur, 2) the tibia, 3) the lateral meniscus. The ALL origin is found on the lateral femoral epicondyle prominence, near the LCL origin. The ALL adheres to the femur initially near the lateral femoral epicondyle, with an oblique course to end to the anterolateral aspect of the proximal tibia. The lateral meniscus adhesion site of the anterolateral ligament, is between the body and the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus.3, 4

The origin of the ALL on the tibia is located between the distance of the fibular head and Gerdy’s tubercle and this distance is 4,0-7, 0mm from the articular surface of the lateral tibial plateau.5, 6, 7 In contrast to the tibial adhesion site, the femoral adhesion site of ALL was highly debatable as regards to its accurate location.

Basic anatomical references for the ALL adhesion site to the femur include the lateral epicondyle of the femur and the adhesion site of LCL. Using the Lateral epicondyle of the femur as an anatomical landmark, most articles have described the ALL adhesion to the femur posteriorly and proximally to it8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or centrally to the lateral epicondyle.1, 15, 16 Whilst, using the adhesion site of LCL as an anatomical landmark, the articles describe the adhesion of ALL either posterior and proximal to the LCL,4, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 along its length4, 18, 19, 20, 23 or anterior and proximal to the LCL.4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 22

Regarding the dimensions of the ALL based on the literature review, the length of ALL varied from 30.41mm to 59.0mm. The width of ALL was in between 4.0mm-7.0mm and the thickness was ranging from 1.0mm to 2.0mm.

1) LFC: Lateral Femoral Condyle 2) GT: Gerdy Tubercle 3) TH: Thickness 4) W : Width 5) LFE : Lateral Femoral Epicondyle 6) LCL : Lateral Collateral Ligament

Embiomechanics

Different opinions exist regarding the length of ALL, due to the uncertainty of its attachment to the femur based on the flexion angle of the knee. In 2014, Dodds et al described the ALL as isometric ligament between 0-60 degrees of knee flexion, and reduction on its length from 60 to 90 degrees of flexion.4

These findings contradict the results from previous studies2, 20, 22, 24 which proved that the ALL is non-isometric and gradually increases in length during flexion of the knee from 0 to 90 degrees. In 2016, Impert et al. discovered that the change of the ALL length was dependent on the way that the femoral attachment of ALL was defined.25 The differences on the length of ALL corelate with the 3 different femoral attachments of it. Reduced length of ALL is noticed on the posterior and proximal attachment of the ALL from the lateral epicondyle. There is an increase on ALL length for the central and antero-lateral attachment from the lateral epicondyle. Helito et al, in 2016, described that ALL consists of 2 different bands and noted that the superficial band of ALL length was increasing with knee extension, whilst the length of the deep band was increasing with knee flexion.9 Zens et al, in 2015 conducted an embiomechanical analysis of the ALL to define its mechanical properties in order to better understand its role. The average load of the ALL prior to its rupture was 49.90 (+/- 14,62), with a maximum tension load of 32,78 N/mm2 and an average extension distance of 11,89 (+/- 1,56mm).22 The results from a study in 2015 proved that the mean maximum load that ALL could endure, during a flexion trial, prior to its rupture was 175N, with mean stiffness of 20N/mm (Kennedy et al 2015).21 There was difference in the opinions of Kennedy et al in 2015 and Helito et al in 2016 regarding ALL rigidity.9, 21 Zens et al, in 2015 along with Helito et al in 2016 agree that ALL deformity was around 10-12mm.9, 22 Consequently, from these studies come the following conclusions for ALL mechanical properties. 1) Maximum endurance 50-200N, 2) Stiffness 20-42N/mm, 3) Deformity of 30% of its length, 4) Tension 33N/mm2.

Surgical indications

Indications regarding surgical reconstruction of ALL vary. Several studies have mentioned that the major indications of ALL reconstruction include patients that undergo reconstruction of ACL with risk factors that increase the risk of its tear, such as: revision of ACL reconstruction, Pivot-shift Grade 2/3, high demand patients, Segond fractures and ligament laxity.26, 27, 28 Another important risk factor is the age of the patient (<20 years). Regarding the contraindications of the ALL reconstruction, the diameter of the graft should not be less than 7 mm. Finally, arthritis of the lateral compartment of the knee is another important contraindication.

Figure 1

Surgical management of ACL tear with concomitant lateral knee instability

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/499a149d-8983-4661-859e-094f235c1ade/image/1f8812a1-6928-4d7b-88e4-ed3378d2f049-uimage.png

ALL imaging

Ultrasound: In 2016 and 2017 Cavaignac et al.29, 30 as well as Cianca et al. in 2014 used ultrasound and managed in all cases to identify ALL.31 In 2016, Oshima et al. reported that most ALL segments were identifiable and therefore ultrasound is a useful imaging screening method in order to identify ALL injuries.32 However, in 2017, Capo et al, noticed that ultrasound could not reliably identify the femoral and tibial attachment of ALL.33

MRI: In 2014, Helito et al reviewed 39 MRI cases and was able to identify ALL in a percentage of 97,8.6 The meniscal segment of ALL is the most frequently identifiable (94,8%). In another 3T MRI review of fresh cadaveric samples, Caterine et al in 2015 was able to identify ALL with a 100% success rate.34 The images that were taken at a sagittal level proved that the femoral attachment was not visible in several specimens due to the high proximity of ALL and other ligamentous structures. However, several meniscal and tibial attachments were also identified.34 In 2015, Helito et al and Kosy et al studied 1, 5T MRI images and reported satisfactory results for the identification of the meniscal segment of ALL.7, 18 On the contrary, in 2015, Taneja et al was not able to identify the meniscal attachment of ALL in a study of 1,5T and 3,0T MRI studies.35 In 2015, Porino et al, reviewed a case of series, including 20 patients with Segond fracture coming to the conclusion that 19 cases showed attachment of ALL on the Segond fragment.36 In 2016, Coquart et al reached to the conclusion that ALL is successfully identifiable with the use of 1,5T MRI, suggesting that a better imaging description of the anatomy of ALL can be useful on the pre-operative planning in patients with ACLR injury.37

Figure 2

Segond fracture

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/499a149d-8983-4661-859e-094f235c1ade/image/b36652c7-f8e9-4688-9af1-1fed95999301-uimage.png

Figure 3

Segond fracture

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/499a149d-8983-4661-859e-094f235c1ade/image/8ec383d6-f649-452b-9c6a-b65fdce2e759-uimage.png

Arthroscopic identification of ALL

In 2018, Zein et al described an arthroscopic technique showing that the menisco-tibial attachment of ALL is identifiable by probing the lateral meniscus.38 Similarly, in 2014 Sonnery-Cottet published an arthroscopic method that would identify ALL.39 A shaver is introduced through a lateral portal and it is used for the removal of synovial tissue between fascia latae and lateral cortex of the femur, allowing the surgeon to examining ALL integrity more specifically on its femoral attachment.

Table 1

Accumulated characteristics of ALL

Articles –

Year

Femoral

Adhesion

Tibial

Adhesion

Length of

ALL

Width/

Thickness of ALL

1) Vincent et al

2012

LFC

Posterior of GT

43,1±3,4 mm

TH: 2-3mm

W: 8,2±1,5mm

2) Claes et al

2013

Center of LFE

Between

GT and FH

38,5±6,1mm (0°)

41,5±6,7mm(90°)

TH: 1,2±0,3mm

W: 6,7±3,0mm

3) Helito et al

2013

Anterior-Superior

of LCL

Between

GT and FH

37,3±4mm

TH: 2,7±0,6mm

W: 7,4±1,7mm

4) Helito et al

2013

Anterior-Superior

of LCL

Between

GT and FH

35,1 mm

TH: 2,6mm

W: 6,8mm

5) Dodds et al

2014

Posterior-Proximal

of LFE

Between

GT and FH

59,0±4,0mm

TH:-

W:6,0±1,0mm

6) Helito et al

2014

Anterior-Superior

of LCL

Between

GT and FH

-

-

7) Claes et al

2014

Center of LFE

Between

GT and FH

-

W.tibial adhesion.11,3±2.8mm

8)Caterine et al

2014

Posterior-Proximal of LCL

Anterior of LCL

Between

GT and FH

40,3±6,2mm(0°)

TH:1,4±0,6mm

W:5,1±1,8mm

9) Zens et al

2015

Anterior-Superior of LCL

Between

GT and FH

-

-

10) Kennedy et al

2015

Posterior-Proximal to LCL

Between

GT and FH

36,8mm(0°)

41,6mm(90°)

-

11) Kennedy et al

2015

Posterior-Proximal to LCL

Between

GT and FH

36,8mm(0°)

41,6mm(90°)

-

12) Helito et al

2015

Anterior-Superior of LCL

Between

GT and FH

36,62±4,053mm

W:6,08±1,038mm

13) Helito et al

2016

Center of LFE

Between

GT and FH

-

-

14) Runer et al

2016

Posterior-Proximal LCL (55%)

Near to LCL (45%)

Between

GT and FH

42,2±6,2mm (0°)

46,9±6,8mm(60°)

45,9±6,6mm(90°)

TH: 1,2±0,3mm

W: 5,6±1,3mm

15) Watanable et al

2016

Type Ι :

1)Along LCL length

2)Posterior to LCL

3)Anterior to LCL

Type ΙΙ:

From anterior to posterior of LCL

Type Ι :

Between

GT and FH

Type ΙΙ:

Near GT

-

TH:

Type Ι:

1,2±0,3mm

Type ΙΙ:

0,45±1mm

16) Kosy et al

2016

1) Posterior-Proximal

2) Along LCL length

3) Anterior-Superior of LCL

Between

GT and FH

40,1±5,53mm

TH:0,87±0,18

W: 4,63±1,39mm

17) Potu et al

2016

LFC

Between

GT and FH

34,23mm(0°)

30,41mm(90°)

TH:1,78mm

W: 4,04mm

18) Stijak et al

2016

Anterior to LCL

Between

GT and FH

41±3mm

TH: 1mm

W: 4±1mm

19) Shea et al

2016

Near LCL

Between

GT and FH

-

-

20) Daggett et al

2016

Center of LFE

Posterior-Proximal of LFE

Between

GT and FH

-

W femoral adhesion: 11,85mm

21) Helito et al

2016

Superficial Layer:

Posterior-Proximal LFE

Deep Layer:

Center

Posterior-Proximal

Superior to LFE

Between

GT and FH

Superficial Layer:

53,0±53,3mm(0°)

50,0±53,9mm(90°)

Deep Layer:

33,5±36,7mm (0°)

36,7±38mm (90°)

-

22) Fardin et al

2017

Non identifiable ALL

-

-

-

23) Corbo et al

2017

Center of LFE

Posterior-Proximal of LFE

Between

GT and FH

-

TH: 2,7±06mm

W: 9,3±1,3mm

24) Brockmeyer et al

2017

Posterior-Proximal of LFE

Between

GT and FH

-

-

25) Toro-Ibarquen et al 2017

Posterior-Proximal

Along its length

Anterior-Superior of LCL

Between

GT and FH

12,3±2,3mm(0°)

14,3±2,3mm(90°)

TH:1,1±0,5mm

W:1,5±0,6mm

26) Farhan et al

2017

Posterior-Proximal of LFE

20,4±3,1

Posterior to

GT

21,33±4,6

Anterior to FH

39,2±7,2mm

TH:1,0±3,4mm

W femoral adhesion:

6,5±2,7mm

W tibial adhesion:

7,4±3,4mm

27) Helito et al

2017

Center of LFE

Posterior-Proximal LFE

Between

GT and FH

7,19±1,80mm(0°)

9,11±1,60mm(90°)

TH:0,39±0,16

W:2,12±0,47

28) Shea et al

2017

10mm Superior to the superior femoral epiphyses

Between

GT and FH

33mm

W: 3-4mm

29) Daggett et al

2017

Center of LFE

Antero-lateral tibia

Males:

38,42±2.9mm

Females:

35,7±3,9mm

TH: Males/females.

2,09±0,6 mm 1,05±05 mm

30) Neri et al

2017

Posterior-Proximal of LFE

Between

GT and FH

50,39±6,64mm (30°) and internal rotation.

TH: 1,35±0,18mm

Table 2

Changes on the length of ALL

Claes et al 2013

In 90° of flexion--> 41±6,7 mm

In extension--> 38,5±6,1 mm

Dodds et al 2014

Isometric from 0° to 60° of flexion

Reduced length 4,1±0,9mm from 60°to 90° of flexion

Kennedy et al 2015

Constant increase of ALL length with increased knee flexion

In 90° of flexion--> 41,6mm

In extension--> 36,8 mm

Zens et al 2015

Constant increase of ALL length with increased knee flexion: 10,15% per degree of flexion.

Runer et al 2016

Increase in length from 0°to 60° of flexion for 4,7±2,5mm and

Reduction in length for 1,0±1,6mm from 60° to 90°.

Table 3

Surgical indications of ALL reconstruction

Article

Indications

Ariel de Lima et al 2018

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Pivot-shift grade ΙΙ/ΙΙΙ

Ligament laxity

Motion redirection activities (Skying)

High demand athletes

Chronic ACL tear

Saithna et al 2018

Revision of ACLR

Pivot-shift grade ΙΙ/ΙΙΙ

Ligament laxity

Motion redirection activities (Skying)

Young patients

Chronic ACL tear

Sonnery-Cottet et al 2017

Revision of ACLR

Pivot-shift grade ΙΙ/ΙΙΙ

Ligament laxity

Segond fractures

Motion redirection activities (Skying)

Young patients

Chronic ACL tear

Sonnery-Cottet et al 2019

Revision of ACLR

Pivot-shift grade ΙΙ/ΙΙΙ

Ligament laxity

Motion redirection activities (Skying)

Medial meniscus repair

Discussion

The most important outcome of this study is the confirmation of ALL as an individual structure of the antero-lateral knee and that it acts an important stabilizer for the internal rotation of the knee. It presents typically with characteristics of a ligament and it can be visualized on the screening methods. It has a femoral attachment near the lateral femoral epicondyle, it follows an oblique course, attaches to the lateral meniscus and continues with an attachment to the proximal tibia. The number of articles regarding the anatomy of ALL in cadaveric studies has increased since 2013. Despite the increasing number of the articles, some recent studies came to the conclusion that ALL is not identifiable in cadaveric studies. However, some studies could not identify the ALL (Sabzevari et al 2017, Fardin et al 2017).40, 41 Another difficulty related to the imaging of ALL is the high amount of different protocols that were used. Important landmarks for the reconstruction of ALL are the femoral and tibial attachment of the ALL. The femoral attachment of ALL is still highly debatable in comparison to the attachment of ALL on the tibia.8 After several years of studies with increasing anatomical knowledge the literature has proved that ALL is found more frequently posteriorly and proximally to the lateral epicondyle of the femur. Apart from the reconstruction parameters of ALL, the identification of the femoral attachment is important for the understanding of the ALL biomechanics. There is no general consensus regarding the findings of the studies related with the isometric characteristics of ALL during knee flexion. In 2014, Dodds et al claimed that ALL is an isometric ligament in contrast to several other studies that proved ALL to be an non-isometric ligament that gradually increases in length during knee flexion from 0 to 90 degrees.14 In 2016, Nitri et al proved that ALL reconstruction during the ACL reconstruction increase the knee stability during internal rotation based on the pivot-shift test,42 whilst Noyes et al in 2017 claimed that ALL reconstruction does not offer any significant stability during internal rotation of the knee.43 According to the literature, the basic surgical indications for ALL reconstruction include26, 27, 28 : Revision of ACL reconstruction, young patients, high demand athletes, ligament laxity, high degree of pivot shift, motion redirection activities such as skying, chronic injury of ACL, medial meniscus repair. Based on our literature review there is an increasing amount of studies focusing on ALL in recent years. Several indications have been reported for the presence of this ligamentous structure in the basic research, even though there is a certain amount of dispute regarding the anatomical and biomechanical parameters of ALL. This study had some limitations. One of which was the lack of standardization between studies, especially in cadaveric dissections. Various anatomical techniques and different types of cadaveric knees that have been used may have caused fluctuations at the results that were obtained and their interpretation. Identically, the imaging studies were conducted with different methodology. Another remarkable factor is that we searched only for the so called anterolateral ligament, ignoring other names such as lateral capsular ligament, anterolateral complex, anterior oblique band.

Conclusion

The anterolateral ligament is an identifiable ligamentous structure at the anterolateral aspect of the knee. It presents with typical ligamentous features and it can be visualized in screening methods, especially in MRI studies. It has a femoral attachment near the lateral femoral epicondyle with the latest trend to present its attachment posteriorly and proximally to the lateral femoral epicondyle after following an oblique antero-distal course that attached to the lateral meniscus. Finally, it attaches to the proximal third of the tibia, in the middle of the distance between the fibular head and Gerdy’s tubercle. The length of ALL amongst studies varies between 30,41mm and 59,0mm. The width varies between 4,0 and 7,0mm and its thickness ranges from 1.0mm to 2.0mm. As regards to the biomechanics, the function and the surgical reconstruction of ALL there are several queries. It is not yet clear whether the reconstruction of ALL is clinically efficient and whether there are any recent biomechanical studies to recommend it following specific surgical indications. Further biomechanical studies and long-term follow up will be necessary for the evaluation of the clinical efficiency of the ALL reconstruction in order to answer to all of the queries in dispute.

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

1 

P Segond Recherches Cliniques Et Expérimentales Sur Les Épanchements Sanguins Du Genou Par EntorseAux Bureaux du Progrès MédicalParis1879

2 

S Claes E Vereecke M Maes J Victor P Verdonk J Bellemans Anatomy of the anterolateral ligament of the kneeJ Anat20132233218

3 

CP Helito JADP Torres MB Bonadio Anterolateral ligament of the fetal knee: An anatomic and histological studyAm J Sports Med201745916

4 

AN Toro-Ibarguen J Pretell-Mazzini E Pérez I Pedrajas JM Cano-Egea JR Sanudo The anterolateral ligament: A cadaveric study in fetusesClin Anat20173062534

5 

CP Helito MK Demange MB Bonadio Anatomy and histology of the knee anterolateral ligamentOrthop J Sports Med2013110.1177/2325967113513546

6 

CP Helito PV Helito MB Bonadio ED Mota M Bordalo-Rodrigues JR Pecora Evaluation of the length and isometric pattern of the anterolateral ligament with serial computer tomographyOrthop J Sports Med201421210.1177/2325967114562205

7 

CP Helito Pvp Helito M B Bonadio Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging with knee anterolateral ligament anatomy: A cadaveric studyOrthop J Sports Med2015310.1177/2325967115621024

8 

T Neri F Palpacuer R Testa The anterolateral ligament: Anatomic implications for its reconstructionKnee20172410839

9 

CP Helito MB Bonadio TQ Soares The meniscal insertion of the knee anterolateral ligamentSurg Radiol Anat2016382238

10 

CP Helito C Amaral YC Nakamichi RG Gobbi MB Bonadio RJM Natalino Why do authors differ with regard to the femoral and meniscal anatomic parameters of the knee anterolateral ligament? Dissection by layers and a description of its superficial and deep layersOrthop J Sports Med201641210.1177/2325967116675604

11 

PS Farhan R Sudhakaran J Thilak Solving the mystery of the antero lateral ligamentJ Clin Diagn Res201711AC01AC04

12 

G Corbo M Norris A Getgood TA Burkhart The inframeniscal fibers of the anterolateral ligament are stronger and stiffer than the supra-meniscal fibers despite similar histological characteristicsKnee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc201725107885

13 

M Daggett K Busch B Sonnery-Cottet Surgical dissection of the anterolateral ligamentArthrosc Tech201651858

14 

A Dodds C Halewood C Gupte A Williams A Amis The anterolateral ligament: Anatomy, length changes and association with the Segond fractureBone Joint J20149632531

15 

S Claes S Bartholomeeusen J Bellemans High prevalence of anterolateral ligament abnormalities in magnetic resonance images of anterior cruciate ligament-injured kneesActa Orthop Belg201480459

16 

M Daggett C Helito M Cullen A Ockuly K Busch J Granite The Anterolateral Ligament: An Anatomic Study on Sex-Based DifferencesOrthop J Sports Med201722510.1177/2325967116689387

17 

M Brockmeyer D Höfer K Schäfer R Seil K Becker F Paulsen The anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee Part of the iliotibial tract or a truly separate structure?Ann Anat20172121310.1016/j.aanat.2017.02.010

18 

JD Kosy A Soni R Venkatesh VI Mandalia The anterolateral ligament of the knee: Unwrapping the enigma. Anatomical study and comparison to previous reportsJ Orthop Traumatol2016173038

19 

J Watanabe D Suzuki S Mizoguchi S Yoshida M Fujimiya The anterolateral ligament in a Japanese population: Study on prevalence and morphologyJ Orthop Sci20162164751

20 

A Runer S Birkmaier M Pamminger The anterolateral ligament of the knee: A dissection studyKnee201623812

21 

MI Kennedy S Claes FAF Fuso The anterolateral ligament: An anatomic, radiographic, and biomechanical analysisAm J Sports Med201543160615

22 

M Zens P Niemeyer J Ruhhammer Length changes of the anterolateral ligament during passive knee motion: A human cadaveric studyAm J Sports Med201543254552

23 

KG Shea JD Polousky JC Jacobs YM Yen TJ Ganley The anterolateral ligament of the knee: An inconsistent finding in pediatric cadaveric specimensJ Pediatr Orthop201636514

24 

BH Drews O Kessler W Franz L Durselen M Freutel Function andstrain of the anterolateral ligament part I: biomechanical analysisKnee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc201725411329

25 

P Imbert C Lutz M Daggett L Niglis B Freychet F Dalmay Isometric characteristics of the anterolateral ligament of the knee: a cadaveric navigation studyArthroscopy20163210201724

26 

DA Lima CP Helito FRA Lima JAD Leite Surgical indications for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with extra‐articular lateral tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstructionRev Bras Ortop2018536661710.1016/j.rbo.2017.06.027

27 

B Sonnery-Cottet A Saithna M Cavalier C Kajetanek EF Temponi M Daggett Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Is Associated With Significantly Reduced ACL Graft Rupture Rates at a Minimum Follow-up of 2 Years: A Prospective Comparative Study of 502 Patients From the SANTI Study GroupAm J Sports Med2017457154757

28 

B Sonnery-Cottet T D Vieira H Ouanezar - Arthroscopy 2019 - arthroscopyjournal.org. Anterolateral ligament of the knee: diagnosis, indications, technique

29 

E Cavaignac K Wytrykowski N Reina Ultrasonographic identification of the anterolateral ligament of the kneeArthroscopy201632120126

30 

E Cavaignac M Faruch K Wytrykowski Ultrasonographic evaluation of anterolateral ligament injuries: Correlation with magnetic resonance imaging and pivotshift testingArthroscopy201733138490

31 

J Cianca J John S Pandit FY Chiou-Tan Musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging of the recently described anterolateral ligament of the kneeAm J Phys Med Rehab201493186

32 

T Oshima J Nakase H Numata Y Takata H Tsuchiya Ultrasonography imaging of the anterolateral ligament using real-time virtual sonographyKnee201623198202

33 

J Capo DJ Kaplan DJ Fralinger Ultrasonographic visualization and assessment of the anterolateral ligamentKnee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc20172531349

34 

S Caterine R Litchfield M Johnson B Chronik A Getgood A cadaveric study of the anterolateral ligament: Re-introducing the lateral capsular ligamentKnee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc201523318695

35 

AK Taneja FC Miranda CA Braga CM Gill LGC Hartmann DCB Santos MRI features of the anterolateral ligament of the kneeSkeletal Radiol201544340310

36 

J Porrino E Maloney M Richardson H Mulcahy A Ha FS Chew The anterolateral ligament of the knee: MRI appearance, association with the Segond fracture, and historical perspectiveAJR Am J Roentgenol201520436773

37 

B Coquart TL Corroller PE Laurent M Ollivier V Pradel P Champsaur Anterolateral ligament of the knee: Myth or reality?Surg Radiol Anat20163889556210.1007/s00276-016-1657-2

38 

AMNE Zein Step-by-Step Arthroscopic Assessment of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee Using Anatomic LandmarksArthrosc Tech201548253110.1016/j.eats.2015.08.002

39 

B Sonnery-Cottet P Archbold FC Rezende AM Neto JM Fayard M Thaunat Arthroscopic identification of the anterolateral ligament of the kneeArthrosc Tech2014338992

40 

S Sabzevari AA Rahnemai-Azar M Albers M Linde P Smolinski FH Fu Anatomic and histological investigation of the anterolateral capsular complex in the fetal kneeAm J Sports Med20174513837

41 

PBA Fardin JHF Lizardo JDS Baptista Study of the anterolateral ligament of the knee in formalin-embedded cadaversActa Ortop Bras2017258992

42 

M Nitri MT Rasmussen BT Williams SG Moulton RS Cruz GJ Dornan An in vitro robotic assessment of the anterolateral ligament, part 2: anterolateral ligament reconstruction combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructionAm J Sports Med2016443593601

43 

FR Noyes LE Huser D Jurgensmeier J Walsh MS Levy Is an anterolateral ligament reconstruction required in ACL-reconstructed knees with associated injury to the anterolateral structures? A robotic analysis of rotational knee stabilityAm J Sports Med2017455101827



jats-html.xsl

© This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.




Wiki in hindi