Editorial Commentary: Back to the Future With the Medial Patellofemoral Complex

Editorial Commentary: Proper Femoral Tunnel Placement for Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction Requires Optimal Radiographic Technique

Femoral tunnel malposition has been shown to be a risk factor for medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction failure. Palpation of the "saddle point" between the adductor tubercle and medial epicondyle can be an effective strategy; however, compared to using fluoroscopy, tunnel placement using palpation alone may result in significantly more frequent malposition. Accordingly, use of radiographic landmarks has gained in popularity. However, the technique is not without its pitfalls. The first issue lies with obtaining an adequate x-ray. Deviation from a true lateral x-ray by as little as 5° can result in significant tunnel malposition. Including sufficient visible femoral shaft is also required; a minimum requirement is 4 cm. The literature widely varies as to the anatomic, fluoroscopic position. Schottle's point (1.3 mm anterior to the posterior cortical extension line) is the most well studied.

Medial Patellofemoral Complex Reconstruction (Combined Reconstruction of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament and Medial Quadriceps Tendon-Femoral Ligament) With Semitendinosus Autograft Resulted in Similar Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes to Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction in Treating Recurrent Patellar Dislocation

PURPOSE

To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFL-R) and medial patellofemoral complex reconstruction (MPFC-R) for recurrent patellar dislocation. Outcome measures were compared based on the Insall-Salvati index.

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with recurrent patellar dislocation and underwent either MPFL-R or MPFC-R (combined reconstruction of MPFL and medial quadriceps tendon-femoral ligament) were retrospectively analyzed. Group allocation was based on surgical procedure and patient characteristics were collected. Clinical assessments included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and return-to-sports rates. Minimal clinically important difference analysis was performed. A subgroup analysis of PROMs was carried out between patients with an Insall-Salvati index ≤1.2 versus >1.2. The patellar tilt angle, lateral patellar displacement, and bisect offset ratio were measured pre- and postsurgery. Functional failures and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 70 patients (72 knees) in the MPFL-R group and 58 patients (61 knees) in the MPFC-R group were included. Patient characteristics were comparable between the groups. At a minimum follow-up of 24 (mean, 50.6 ± 22.1) months, all PROMs were substantially improved (P < .001), without significant intergroup differences. The percentages of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference were similar after MPFL-R and MPFC-R: 98.6% versus 93.4% (International Knee Documentation Committee), 97.2% versus 98.4% (Lysholm), 98.6% versus 100% (Kujala), and 77.8% versus 72.1% (Tegner). The subgroup analysis based on patellar height and the return-to-sport rates also suggested comparable results. Radiographic evaluation demonstrated significantly smaller lateral patellar displacements (P = .004) and bisect offset ratios (P < .001) but similar patellar tilt angles after MPFC-R. Four (5.6%) patients receiving MPFL-R and 2 (3.3%) patients receiving MPFC-R reported recurrence of functional instability, without statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

MPFC-R resulted in similar overall clinical and radiographic outcomes to MPFL-R in treating recurrent patellar dislocation. MPFC-R might not provide additional benefits for patients with an Insall-Salvati index >1.2.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic, retrospective cohort study.