Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction With Concomitant Lateral Patellofemoral Reconstruction for Patellar Instability

Comparison of Failure Rates at Long-term Follow-up Between MPFL Repair and Reconstruction for Recurrent Lateral Patellar Instability

Background

The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is the primary soft tissue restraint to lateral patellar translation and is often disrupted by lateral patellar dislocation. Surgical management for recurrent patellar instability focuses on restoring the MPFL function with repair or reconstruction techniques. Recent studies have favored reconstruction over repair; however, long-term comparative studies are limited.

Purpose

To compare long-term clinical outcomes, complications, and recurrence rates of isolated MPFL reconstruction and MPFL repair for recurrent lateral patellar instability.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 55 patients (n = 58 knees) with recurrent lateral patellar instability were treated between 2005 and 2012 with either MPFL repair or MPFL reconstruction. The exclusion criteria were previous or concomitant tibial tubercle osteotomy or trochleoplasty and follow-up of <8 years. Pre- and postoperative descriptive, surgical, imaging, and clinical data were recorded for each patient.

Results

MPFL repair was performed on 26 patients (n = 29 knees; 14 women, 15 men), with a mean age of 18.4 years. MPFL reconstruction was performed on 29 patients (n = 29 knees; 18 women, 11 men), with a mean age of 18.2 years. At a mean follow-up of 12 years (range, 8.3-18.9 years), the reconstruction group had a significantly lower rate of recurrent dislocation compared with the repair group (14% vs 41%; P = .019). There were no differences in the number of preoperative dislocations or tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance. The reconstruction group had significantly more time from initial injury to surgery compared with the repair group (median, 1460 days vs 627 days; P = .007). There were no differences in postoperative Tegner, Lysholm, or Kujala scores at the final follow-up. In addition, no statistically significant differences were detected in return to sport (RTS) rates (repair [81%] vs reconstruction [75%]; P = .610) or reoperation rates for recurrent instability (repair [21%] vs reconstruction [7%]; P = .13).

Conclusion

MPFL repair resulted in a nearly 3-fold higher rate of recurrent patellar dislocation (41% vs 14%) at the long-term follow-up compared with MPFL reconstruction. Given this disparate rate, the authors recommend MPFL reconstruction over repair because of the lower failure rate and similar, if not superior, clinical outcomes and RTS.

Lateral Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Techniques

BACKGROUND

The importance of maintaining lateral patellar stabilizing structures has been demonstrated by the presence of iatrogenic medial patellar instability after lateral retinacular release (LRR) procedures. In patients with medial patellar instability, lateral patellofemoral ligament (LPFL) reconstruction has been clinically shown to restore patellar stability while improving patient-reported outcomes. However, the biomechanics associated with different LPFL reconstruction techniques remain largely unknown.

PURPOSE

To (1) investigate whether LPFL reconstruction restores medial patellar translation compared with the intact state after LRR and (2) evaluate for any biomechanical differences between soft tissue and osseous LPFL reconstruction techniques.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

A total of 7 knees were included in the final analysis. The knees were dissected, and the tibia and femur were potted. An eye screw was then placed at the midpoint of the patella perpendicular to the medial surface. A custom jig was constructed to allow for a 1-kg load to be applied to the quadriceps muscle. Medial patellar displacement was investigated at 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion using a tensile testing machine with a 20-N medial force applied to the patella. Medial patellar displacement was assessed in 4 states: intact, LRR, soft tissue LPFL reconstruction (inserted through incisions in the iliotibial band, quadriceps tendon, and patellar tendon), and osseous LPFL reconstruction.

RESULTS

The LRR group had significantly greater medial patellar translation compared with the intact group throughout flexion (P < .01 to P = .029). The soft tissue LPFL reconstruction group demonstrated significantly greater medial patellar translation at 30° (P = .020) and 45° (P = .025) compared with the intact group, with less translation compared with the LRR group at all degrees of knee flexion except for 45° (P = .065). The osseous LPFL reconstruction group demonstrated significantly greater medial patellar translation compared with the intact group at 30° of flexion (P = .036), with significantly less translation compared with the LRR group from 0° to 30° (P < .01 to P = .013). The soft tissue LPFL reconstruction group (15.94 ± 2.55 mm) demonstrated significantly greater medial patellar translation at 10° of flexion compared with the osseous LPFL reconstruction group (14.16 ± 2.34 mm) (P = .033).

CONCLUSION

Soft tissue LPFL reconstruction led to significantly greater medial patellar translation at 30° and 45° compared with the intact state, while osseous LPFL reconstruction produced significantly greater translation only at 30°. Both the soft tissue and the osseous reconstruction techniques resulted in comparable medial patellar translation at all degrees of knee flexion except for 10°, in which osseous reconstruction was more similar to the intact state.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Compared with LRR, soft tissue LPFL reconstruction was able to restore stability against medial patellar translation at most degrees of knee flexion, while osseous LPFL reconstruction did not provide adequate stabilization beyond 30° of flexion. While the LPFL does appear to have osseous insertions, soft tissue reconstruction functioned more similarly to the intact state after LRR.