Isolated MPFL reconstruction with soft tissue femoral fixation technique in 54 skeletally immature patients: Clinical outcomes at 2 years follow-up. A French multicenter retrospective study

MPFL reconstruction with proximal rather than distal femoral tunnel position leads to less favorable short-term results

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction (MPFLR) between anatomic femoral tunnel positions: proximal (near adductor tubercle [AT]) and distal (near medial epicondyle [ME]).

HYPOTHESIS

MPFLR with the proximal femoral tunnel position has worse clinical and radiological outcomes than those with the distal femoral tunnel position.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-five patients who underwent isolated MPFLR with proximal or distal femoral tunnels with at least 2 years of follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Based on postoperative CT images, 28 patients were classified as group AT and the remaining 27 patients were classified as group ME. The International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, Tegner, Kujala scores, and complications were evaluated. Radiologically, the Caton-Deschamps Index (CDI), patellar tilt angle, patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA), patellofemoral cartilage status by the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade, bone contusion, and MPFL graft signal intensity were evaluated.

RESULTS

All clinical scores significantly improved in both groups (p<0.01). No statistically significant difference was noted between the two groups in regards to their preoperative demographic data, postoperative clinical scores, complications, or radiological findings (CDI, patellar tilt angle, PFOA, bone contusion, and graft signal intensity). The group AT had worse cartilage status on the medial facet of the patella (p=0.02). The ICRS grade for the medial facet of the patella statistically progressed in group AT compared to group ME (p=0.04) as well.

DISCUSSION

Both groups showed significantly improved clinical outcomes. However, for the medial facet of the patella, MPFLR with the proximal femoral tunnel position had worse cartilage status and ICRS grade progression than those with the distal femoral tunnel position.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; retrospective comparative study.

Effect of Medial Patellofemoral Complex Reconstruction Technique on Patellofemoral Contact Pressure, Contact Area, and Kinematics

BACKGROUND

Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction is considered by many to be the gold standard to treat lateral patellar instability; however, some investigators have reported good clinical results after isolated medial quadriceps tendon-femoral ligament (MQTFL) reconstruction or a combined MPFL/MQTFL reconstruction. A handful of studies have preliminarily investigated the biomechanical consequences of these various medial patellar stabilizing procedures. Despite this, no existing study has included multiple medial patellofemoral complex (MPFC) reconstructions and assessment of lateral patellar translation at distinct flexion angles.

HYPOTHESIS

Combined MPFL/MQTFL reconstruction would restore patellofemoral contact areas, forces, and kinematics closest to the native state compared with isolated reconstruction of the MPFL or MQTFL alone.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Ten adult cadaveric knee specimens were prepared and analyzed under 5 different conditions: (1) intact state, (2) transected MPFC, (3) isolated MPFL reconstruction, (4) isolated MQTFL reconstruction, and (5) combined MPFL/MQTFL reconstruction. Patellar tilt, lateral patellar translation, patellofemoral contact forces, and patellofemoral contact areas were measured in each condition from 0° to 80° through simulated knee flexion using a custom servohydraulic load frame with pressure sensor technology and a motion capture system for kinematic data acquisition.

RESULTS

The isolated MPFL, isolated MQTFL, and combined MPFL/MQTFL reconstruction conditions produced significantly less lateral patellar tilt compared with the transected MPFC state (P < .05). No statistically significant differences were found when each reconstruction technique was compared with the intact state in patellar tilt, lateral patellar translation, contact forces, and contact areas.

CONCLUSION

All 3 reconstruction techniques (isolated MPFL reconstruction, isolated MQTFL reconstruction, and combined MPFL/MQTFL reconstruction) restored native knee kinematics, contact forces, and contact areas without overconstraint.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Isolated MPFL reconstruction, isolated MQTFL reconstruction, and combined MPFL/MQTFL reconstruction all restore patellofemoral stability comparable with the intact MPFC state without the overconstraint that could be concerning for increasing risk of patellofemoral arthritis.

Arthroscopic Patella Realignment for Children And Adolescents: A Single Incision Technique

Management of patellofemoral conditions in children and adolescents can be extremely challenging. Apart from the patellofemoral instability patients, there are several other disorders that can cause significant morbidity, patellofemoral maltracking, patellar tilt, and Hoffa's fat pad impingement syndrome are common problems that may not respond to nonoperative management. Understanding the exact pathology and apply the appropriate management is critical for successful outcome. Identification of novel surgical interventions that can provide symptom relief in a safe manner is important. This technical note describes a surgical technique for patella realignment in young patients that combines safety, simplicity, and reproducibility.

What is the best fixation method in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction? A biomechanical comparison of common methods for femoral graft attachment

INTRODUCTION

A variety of techniques have been described for femoral fixation in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLr). The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of the most used methods for graft fixation in the femur using human cadaveric tissue. We wondered what is the best fixation method for femoral fixation in MPFL reconstruction?

HYPOTHESIS

A suspensory fixation device provides the best femoral fixation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Twenty cadaveric knees were tested. Four femoral fixation methods were compared (5 knees per group): interference fixation with a Biosure© RG 5 mm and a 7 mm, suture anchor (Healicoil Regenesorb 4.75 mm ©) and suspensory fixation with the Ultrabutton©. The testing was divided in preconditioning, cyclic loading and load to failure. Load to failure, elongation, stiffness and mode of failure were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

The Ultrabutton© had the highest mean ultimate load (427 ± 215 N (p = 0.5)), followed by Healicoil anchor © (308 ± 44 N (p > 0.05)) and the interference screw of 7 mm (255 ± 170 N (p > 0.05)). Mean stiffness was similar in the Ultrabutton© and 4.75 mm. Healicoil anchor © groups (111 ± 21 N/mm and 119 ± 20 N/mm respectively), and lowest in 7 mm Biosure© screw fixation group (90 ± 5 N/mm). The Biosure© 5 mm RG screw presented 100% of premature rupture because of tendon slippage. The Ultrabutton© presented the lowest premature rupture (40%).

DISCUSSION

A suspensory fixation for the femur had the lowest number of graft failures and highest load to failure. This study has implications for surgeons' choice of graft fixation in MPFLr. It is the first study to test the most commonly femoral used fixation methods, allowing direct comparisons between each method.