Combined Soft Tissue Reconstruction of the Medial Patellofemoral Ligament and Medial Quadriceps Tendon-Femoral Ligament

Patellofemoral instability part 1 (When to operate and soft tissue procedures): State of the art

Patellofemoral instability is usually initially treated non-operatively. Surgery is considered in patients with recurrent patellar dislocation and after a first-time patellar dislocation in the presence of either an associated osteochondral fracture or high risk of recurrence. Stratifying the risk of recurrence includes evaluating risk factors such as age, trochlear dysplasia, contralateral dislocation, and patellar height. Surgery with soft tissue procedures includes restoring the medial patellar restraints and balancing the lateral side of the joint. Reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament is the most frequent way of addressing the medial soft tissues in patients with patellofemoral instability. Meanwhile, lateral tightness can be achieved by lateral retinaculum lengthening or release. Approaching patellofemoral instability in a patient-specific approach, combined with a shared decision-making process with the patient/family, will guide surgeons to the deliver optimal care for the patellar instability patient.

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.

Physeal Sparing Approaches for MPFL Reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To update and concepts for pediatric physeal-sparing patellofemoral stabilization surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have demonstrated positive results in patellofemoral stabilization in pediatric populations with physeal-sparing techniques that limit the potential for physeal damage. Comprehensive analysis remains limited by population and technique heterogeneity. Physeal-sparing patellofemoral stabilization, most significantly through physeal-sparing reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament complex remains a viable option for pediatric patients with recurrent patellofemoral instability.

Arthroscopic Anatomical Double-Bundle Medial Patellofemoral Complex Reconstruction Improves Clinical Outcomes in Treating Recurrent Patellar Dislocation Despite Trochlear Dysplasia, Elevated Tibial Tubercle-Trochlear Groove Distance, and Patellar Alta

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of arthroscopically assisted double-bundle medial patellofemoral complex reconstruction (MPFC-R).

METHODS

A retrospective review was carried out among adult patients who experienced at least 2 patellar dislocations and underwent primary arthroscopically assisted MPFC-R between January 2014 and November 2019. Dejour classification, tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, and patellar height (with Insall-Salvati index) were measured. Pre- and postoperative patellar tilt were compared. Information on outcome scores, ability to return to sports, postoperative recurrent dislocations, and complications was recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 42 MPFC-Rs in 39 patients were included. Mean age at surgery was 22.2 ± 7.6 years; 69.2% of patients were female. Mean follow-up was 47.3 ± 20.2 months. Seventy-four percent of cases had Dejour B (19.0%), C (33.3%), and D (21.4%) trochlear dysplasia; mean TT-TG distance was 19.6 ± 3.5 mm, and mean Insall-Salvati index was 1.21 ± 0.17. Mean patellar tilt decreased from 27.6 ± 11.6° to 9.4 ± 6.5° (P < .001). All patients had statistically significant (P < .001) improvement in mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) (44.9 ± 18.2 to 87.5 ± 6.9), Lysholm (61.4 ± 16.6 to 94.1 ± 6.4), Kujala (56.0 ± 16.8 to 92.9 ± 5.3), and Tegner score (2.7 ± 1.3 to 4.6 ± 1.4). The majority of patients (96.9%) returned to sports, with 90.3% returning to the same or greater level of activity. No postoperative dislocations or subluxations were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopically assisted double-bundle MPFC-R is a promising procedure to treat recurrent patellar instability at 2- to 7-year mid-term follow-up, despite the presence of trochlear dysplasia, elevated TT-TG distance and patellar alta. The improvement of IKDC score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference in 95.2% patients, and 66.7% surpassed the patient acceptable symptomatic state based on postoperative IKDC score with no redislocations being reported at latest follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series, retrospective.

Combined Reconstruction of the Medial Patellofemoral Ligament and Medial Quadriceps Tendon Femoral Ligament in Skeletally Immature Patients

The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction is challenging in skeletally immature patients due to the anatomical particularities at this age. Recently, the medial quadriceps tendon femoral ligament (MQTFL) has received great interest for its ability to restrain the patella's instability along with MPFL. No gold-standard technique has been described so far to reconstruct both MPFL and MQTFL in skeletally immature patients. We present a technique to safely reconstruct the MPFL and the MQTFL in children and adolescents. The gracilis tendon autograft is harvested and passed through the medial collateral ligament as a pulley. The free ends of the graft are passed through the patella by an "L-shaped tunnel" and tied to itself. The other free end of the graft is pulled through the medial third of the quadriceps tendon and tied to itself to achieve tension. Our technique is reproducible, implant-free and avoids complications associated with femoral drilling and graft fixation. However no long-term follow-up results are available.

Radiographic Landmarks for the Femoral Attachment of the Medial Patellofemoral Complex: A Cadaveric Study

PURPOSE

To report the radiographic landmarks for the medial patellofemoral complex (MPFC) footprint on the medial femur and describe the difference between the radiographic positions corresponding to the medial quadriceps tendon femoral ligament (MQTFL) and medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) fibers.

METHODS

In 8 unpaired cadaveric knees, the MPFC footprint was exposed on the medial femur, and the proximal and distal boundaries of the footprint were marked. Lateral fluoroscopic images of the knee were obtained and analyzed using Image J. The proximal boundary corresponding to the MQTFL, the MPFC midpoint, and distal boundary corresponding to the MPFL were described radiographically and compared for differences in position.

RESULTS

The proximal MQTFL footprint was 0.8 ± 0.6 mm anterior (P = .013) and 5.2 ± 1.8 mm proximal to the MPFC midpoint (P <.001), whereas the distal MPFL footprint was 0.8 ± 0.7 mm posterior (P = .012) and 5.9 ± 1.1 mm distal to the radiographic MPFC midpoint (P <.001). The radiographic point corresponding to the distal MPFL footprint was 0.8 ± 0.9 mm posterior (P = .011) and 11.1 ± 2.3 mm distal to the radiographic point of the proximal MQTFL footprint (P <.001). When using the point of intersection of the posterior cortical line and the proximal posterior condyle as a reference, 91.6% of all points correlating to the MQTFL, MPFC midpoint and MPFL, were within 10 mm in any direction from this radiographic landmark.

CONCLUSIONS

On fluoroscopic imaging, the proximal MQTFL and distal MPFL fibers had significantly different radiographic positions from the MPFC midpoint on the femur. These findings should be considered when reconstructing specific components of the MPFC.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As fluoroscopy is often used intraoperatively to guide graft placement, our findings may serve as a reference when differentiating the locations of the MPFL vs MQTFL on the femur for anatomic reconstruction.

Medial Patellofemoral Complex Advancement for Recurrent Lateral Patellar Instability and Selective Acute Primary Patellar Dislocations

Medial patellofemoral complex (MPFC) is considered as the primary medial patellar restraint and has a static, as well as dynamic, component. MPFL reconstruction (MPFL-R) restores only the static component of MPFC, is associated with multiple technical concerns, and has a steep learning curve. Need for physeal sparing techniques and relatively high rates of complications including patella fracture are some other concerns with MPFL-R. We propose a simple procedure for advancement of MPFC onto patella, which is indicated in most of the recurrent lateral instabilities (with a positive lateral glide test result and an intact MPFL on magnetic resonance imaging). The procedure is also indicated in selective acute primary dislocations-those with associated chondral lesions and magnetic resonance imaging-documented isolated patellar side avulsion/injury. MPFC advancement is a more anatomical procedure that also restores dynamic medial checkrein of patella and can be performed even by a novice surgeon. MPFC advancement is devoid of the multiple technicalities of MPFL-R, does not require intraoperative imaging or any postoperative immobilization, and renders complications like donor graft-site morbidity and patella fractures irrelevant. It requires no modifications in patients with open physes and can be performed in isolation or with other procedures as per à la carte principle.